Obama Paradox

I think we all agree on something that history did happen when the president told his countrymen and the world that he was putting on hold the much anticipated US attack against Syria. Besides, why would no one be looking at Barrack Obama in the first place? Anyway, it was just Barrack Obama weak stance to defend his own debacle to have had miserably failed to gain support from his allies from across the Atlantic that had propelled him to say that “he hadn't changed his mind about the need and justification for punishing the Syrian government for its probable use of chemical weapons against its own citizens.” If he really had said he hadn't changed his mind about the need and justification for punishing the Syrian government, he sure wouldn’t have put on hold the much anticipated yet belated US attack against Syria in the first place because we all know that Barrack Obama should have attacked Syria long time ago (that is if he really has any b@lls left naturally. It is just a c*ck and bull story if America finally decides to “"go it alone" in punishing Bashar al-Assad's regime for its bad behaviour” because the main reason why he’s been asking for approval of Congress in the first place was because he has found out that Britain had already voted against the intervention in Syria and there had been strong resistance from French people at large to oppose any decision to tag along in the intervention. Believe me when i say that Barrack Obama sure wouldn’t have asked for approval of Congress, had his allies Britain and France decided to be on board toward the intervention plan. Besides, America sure thinks that it would simply be a suicidal mission to strike Syria if America ever decides to go on stand-alone mode because america didn’t even take part in the air-bombing campaign in a weaker state of Libya. Like I have said before that asking for approval of Congress is nothing more than just Barrack Obama way of telling that he buckles under pressure to know that his allies have dumped him. To put it simply, Barrack Obama needs the approval to stall for more time. And for the so-called liberal law professor, who absolutely had no qualms to surge American boots in Afghanistan, who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list,” who shunned the legislative deal-making required to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, but approves lethal action without hand-wringing, Barrack Obama has utterly flunked the test of warmongering and pugnacity. Perhaps he is the problem because he simply isn’t ready to be as impulsive, reckless and ruthless as Bush is. Moreover, we all know that it’s been a major blow for America to be left alone by its staunch allies, Britain, to intervene solo in Syria. Last year, The New York Times interviewed around three dozens of Barrack Obama’s former and current advisers and they all said that Barrack Obama was a leader of full paradox when his so-called “Kill List” program had gone public and the following are some excerpts from the article “Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list,” poring over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre “baseball cards” of an unconventional war. When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises but his family is with him it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation. Nothing else in Mr. Obama’s first term has baffled liberal supporters and confounded conservative critics alike as his aggressive counterterrorism record. His actions have often remained inscrutable, obscured by awkward secrecy rules, polarized political commentary and the president’s own deep reserve.” “In interviews with The New York Times, three dozen of his current and former advisers described Mr. Obama’s evolution since taking on the role, without precedent in presidential history, of personally overseeing the shadow war with Al Qaeda. They describe a paradoxical leader who shunned the legislative deal-making required to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, but approves lethal action without hand-wringing. While he was adamant about narrowing the fight and improving relations with the Muslim world, he has followed the metastasizing enemy into new and dangerous lands. When he applies his lawyering skills to counterterrorism, it is usually to enable, not constrain, his ferocious campaign against Al Qaeda even when it comes to killing an American cleric in Yemen, a decision that Mr. Obama told colleagues was “an easy one.””Barrack Obama, the liberal law professor, who both campaigned against the Iraq war and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list” and shunned the legislative deal-making required to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, but approves lethal action without hand-wringing, is still a paradoxical leader now. However, this so-called type of paradox has quite changed from the way it used to be because his paradox now has been nothing but a true embodiment of a man without clear consciousness due to his own awkward, desperate utterance “President insists US should launch limited strike to "deter" Assad, but says he will seek approval of Congress first.” Just what on earth is that thing? President insists US should launch limited strike to "deter" Assad, but says he will seek approval of Congress first? If he wants to play his cards right, he should seek approval of the Security Council first because this so-called intervention is still illegal without the approval of the Security Council and then approval of Congress. Or Is he going to follow the same path UK has already taken? Barrack Obama couldn’t even make UK believe that intervention was supposed to be healthy for their warmongering minds. In summary, the current type of Obama paradox “President insists US should launch limited strike to "deter" Assad, but says he will seek approval of Congress first” is nothing but Barrack Obama’s way of concocting cheap excuses to stall for more time because the simple fact is that Barrack Obama and America simply buckle under the constant terrifying thought to have to confront those mighty Hezbollah, Iranian, and Syrian warriors in the first place. I remember when Leon Panetta said to president Karzai that he should be grateful instead of criticizing America, “We've lost over 2,000 men and women, ISAF has lost forces there and the Afghans have lost a large number of their forces in battle. Those lives were lost fighting the right enemy, not the wrong enemy. I think it would be helpful if the President [Karzai] every once in a while expressed his thanks for the sacrifices that have been made by those who have fought and died for Afghanistan, rather than criticising."In the meantime, one of the Elders, Jimmy Carter, whose so-called Carter Doctrine was intended to employ any means necessary to prevent a hostile power from gaining control of the Persian Gulf, was neither able to implement his so-called doctrine in Iran following the Iranian revolution in 1979 to free the American hostages there nor did it enable Jimmy Carter to topple the Khameini until Carter’s final term in office. Many decades later, Barrack Obama so-called doctrine to ask for approval of Congress is nothing more than his way of stalling for more time so that he has enough time to choose which one is better to strike or not to strike. That is the question.

Hope for the Future

I've been in Africa and seen children with swollen bellies foraging for food through rubbish dumps. That's poverty it breaks your heart. It makes you cry. Do you have no wish to see children start life with a reasonably similar chance in life? How can they do that when they begin so unequal? Every indicator shows things are set to get more and more unjust, where talent and hard work have less and less chance of determining a child's future, but luck of birth decides their fate. The long term answer to eradicating child poverty is increased spending on support services and improvements in a child's education that will ensure that the next generation grow up to be happy and responsible adults who will be an asset to our society. Having a primary education is a right of every child. Providing universal education to the children must be one of the "Millennium Developmen Goals". My heart breaks for even one children i see in poverty. Poverty exists hand in hand with many forms of exclusion. It creates despair. Poverty in childhood can blight life chances and cause long term health problems. Poverty is about much more than money. It is about the kind of society we build between us. It is about opportunity and the right to freedom. Our children need hope for their future! My wife and i believe that children are blessings from God and we treat them as such. The most important thing for a child is to know he/she is loved and cherished, regardless of whatever expectations we, as parents, may have.It is time for you to stand up against poverty now!

Syrian Christians

The village of Maaloula is an ancient city with great historical value to the whole world, and specifically the Christian faith. It is the only place in the world where the Western Aramaic language,the same language and dialect of Jesus,is still spoken. The village also holds many beautiful Monasteries and Churches that hold great value to both Muslims and Christians. Videos posted on YouTube in recent days showed fighting between rebels and government forces in the tiny sleepy town,an hour's drive from the capital Damascus. "We cleansed Maaloula from all the Assad thugs and all his Christian dogs,"a rebel commander shouts at the camera in a video posted online over the weekend.

Christians fear radical Islamists have been swelling rebel ranks and mostly comprise Salafi terrorists funded by Saudi Arabia and Persian Gulf Arab puppet regimes.They also fear the same fate as a number of Christians during the war in Iraq, where militants targeted them and spurred many to leave the country. Christians make up roughly 10% of the population. Syria is ruled by a government dominated by Alevis, whose faith is Shiism. The regime is opposed by a divided opposition with a large Wahabbi terrorist presence. Aid agencies say Syria's 2 million Christians are often targeted for suspected sympathies to President Bashar al-Assad's regime. Two top bishops have been kidnapped a well-known priest is missing. Syrian Christians also serve in the Syrian Arab Army and have successfully fought off Jihadi terrorists in many mainly Christian villages in the North West of Damascus. A Maaloula resident said the rebels, many of them sporting beards andshouting Allahu Akbar, or God is great, attacked Christian homes and churches shortly after moving into the village overnight. "They shot and killed people after checking for Christian religious symbols and identification. I heard gunshots and then I saw three bodies lying in the middle of a street in the old quarters of the village," said the resident, reached by telephone from neighboring Jordan. "So many people fled the village for safety." Foreign media which has now been granted access to report from Syria has confirmed that the Syrian Arab Army launched a ferocious counter-attack in coordination with Christian units holed up in the village and were able to kill or rout most of the Salafi terrorists who appeared to be either Saudis or Chechens and flying the black al-Qaida flag. Syrian national TV was broadcasting images of army units entering the village and hoisting Syrian flags on homes and churches to the cheers of the local population.

Islamic Spring 3

It took the Jewish People of the Likud and Irgun who liberated their county Israel from the British. It was the Jews who got the British out of Palestine not the Arabs. An Egyptian called Yasser Arafat pulled the biggest con job on the world by claiming Israel is Palestine.Under a British Mandate before 1948 it was an insult to call an Arab a Palestinian as Palestinians are an invented people who come from Jordan.Palestinians don't even have their own flag but live under the Jordanian flag where most of them reside today. In September 1970 Arafat tried to overthrow King Hussein of Jordan resulting in the deaths of 25,000 Palestinians and sending thousands into exile as refugees. This is known as Black September. The UN recognised the State of Israel in 1948 and the Palestinians have milked this to live off the UN as refugees. No other people have lived as refugees for so long over 65 years.

Hezbollah’s 30 years

Truth is, Hezbollah has not changed. Most Arabs who later realized the truth are the ones who've changed. Hezbollah was born in 1982 for the aims of carrying out today's goals and schemes. Arabs who are willing to kiss the forehead of anyone who raises Palestine's flag threw their support behind this Iranian organization which was planned in Qom and established in Lebanon as a tool for the region’s struggles. What is happening in Aleppo ,Homs Qusayr and the rest of Syria is nothing more than an additional chapter in Hezbollah's bad history. During the same year, forces belonging to Israeli slaughterer Ariel Sharon entered Lebanon surprising everyone by heading towards the capital, Beirut, besieging it and destroying it. These forces eventually destroyed the only Palestinian power, Fatah, which fought 88 difficult days. Fatah finally gave up, and its leader Yasser Arafat left to Cyprus in defeat and then to his final exile in Tunisia. Hezbollah was born as an alternative to the Palestinian Liberation Organization. The Iranians had already decided to use to the Palestinian cause to enter the Arab world and respond to the propaganda of Iraqi president Saddam Hussein who doubted Iran's intentions and fought it on the borders. If we clear our heads and observe what Hezbollah has done in 30 years, we'd realize it has been operating as an Iranian battalion within Iran's struggle with the region's areas, including struggles against the Lebanese, the Arabs and the Israelis. It eliminated national Lebanese and Palestinian powers and became a fort protecting Israel except for few confrontations against it - confrontations in which Israel won. You may ask why Hezbollah always appeared victorious as a steadfast power against Israel. The reason behind this was Arab propaganda that was used to forge and twist facts. Most of Hezbollah's wars fell within Israel's interests. In 1985, the war of the camps erupted. Syrian forces along with Hezbollah and Amal committed massacres against Palestinians, but Arab media stood by the criminals against the victim. Israel also conducted operations against Hezbollah in 1993 and 1996. The battles were finalized with agreements in which Hezbollah made concessions and pledges to Israel. But Arab media claimed that Hezbollah is winning. Even when Israel decided to withdraw from South Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah was not part of this and it threatened that it will not allow its withdrawal. Then, the party invented the issue of the Shebaa Farms to keep their arms, or as they call them, the "resistance" arms. These arms were and still are against the Lebanese. They are currently arms against the Syrians. The proof of this lies in later years, where all wars were against Lebanese national parties beginning with the assassination of Hariri and other leaders. The party's actions thus fell within the interests of the Iranian scheme to dominate Lebanon. The crimes committed during battles in Syria's central town of Qusayr Homs and Aleppo have increased Arab anger and hatred towards Hezbollah. The Lebanese Shiite's chief Hassan Nasrallah had to make an appearance yesterday to defend his reputation which is stained with the blood of children, women and thousands of slain people. In order to gain the sympathy of his adverse audience, he resorted to his old rhetoric style, which was once directed towards Sunni Arabs. And so, he spoke of a united front against Israel and the West. He spoke of how he fought for the sake of the Palestinians although there are no Shiites among them and how his party fought in Bosnia in the 90s although the Muslims there are Sunnis. Has Nasrallah convinced millions of Syrians and 200 million Arabs of his claim that he is fighting in Syria alongside Assad's forces for the sake of Palestine and Jerusalem? I think it is unlikely that he convinced anyone because news of massacres and sectarian murders in Syria have reached an extent where speeches on a mutual forged history can no longer conceal this. With the start of the Arab Spring revolts, both the rulers and the opposition tried to portray the issues through a ridiculous but strangely rife theory that Jews were behind all the events and were busy conspiring against Muslims and Arabs. By forging competing anti-Semitic propaganda and producing conspiracies for the purpose of pointing a finger at Israel and Jews, each side tried to demonize the other side by associating it with Israel. In Libya, rebels claimed that the mother of Muammar Gaddafi was Jewish as a way of defaming the anti-Semitic dictator. Iranian officials did not hesitate to call the Syrian uprising, in its early phase, a conspiracy masterminded by Zionists and Bashar al-Assad repeated the same accusations. And this list goes on. Narrow-mindedness kept the uprisings leadership and supporters from harnessing all existing potential. Instead of dealing with root causes of the problems, they had a "one size fits all" diagnosis with a single prescription for all ills just point a finger at Israel and the Jews. In my view, one reason why the Arab Spring succeeded in toppling old dictatorships but didn’t succeed in replacing them with genuine democracy was that narrow-mindedness kept the uprisings’ leadership and supporters from harnessing all existing potential. Instead of dealing with root causes of the problems, they preferred to choose a simplistic answer and solution for all unresolved issues. They had a “one size fits all” diagnosis with a single prescription for all ills. Whenever there is a mess, a dilemma or a complicated situation, just point a finger at Israel and the Jews.

Slave Tortures: The Mask, Scold's Bridle, or Brank

Mulier taceat in ecclesia

- 'Let the woman be silent in church'

Let the Woman be Silent in Church: Over four centuries, thousands of women were subjected to the wearing of these contraptions. The main principle behind the scold's bridle was: let the woman be silent in church, though the word 'church' referred to the Parish community, or to be more precise; the male hierarchies of a community, rather than the building of bricks and mortar. Further translation would suggest more accurately - 'Let the woman be silent in the presence of the male'.

(Image source: Faganarms)

English or possibly Colonial American as these were used by the Puritan Pilgrims who severely punished offenses which violated their cultural or religious values. The concept and its predecessors originated in Scotland and were popular throughout England. Comprising a finely forged cage of four bars, sized for a woman’s head, the front shaped to accommodate the nose. The lower face enclosed by a plate with pin pierced ventilation holes and a small triangular opening at the mouth through which food and drink could be administered.

The back bar with a finely forged “pig tail” terminal. The sides with shackles meeting the back side bars with small holes for rivet fastening. This example is distinguished by its small feeding aperture and provision for rivet locking rather than padlocking. The former feature undoubtedly allowed for bread and water to sustain life and both features indicate its use for long term incarceration. Its fine rich stable patina is as found on examples preserved in museum collections. Height: 11 3/4” (source:Faganarms)

Scold's Bridle: This was a metal frame place over a woman's head. It had a bit that stuck in her mouth to prevent her talking. The scold's bridle or branks was used in Scotland by the 16th century and was used in England from the 17th century. It was last used in Britain in 1824

Source: Le Magasin Pittoresque (1846, Vol. 14), p. 229

Caption "Esclave Marron a Rio de Janeiro" (Fugitive/Runaway Slave in Rio de Janeiro), based on a drawing by a Mister Bellel. The engraving illustrates a brief article on fugitive slaves in Brazil, and is apparently derived from first-hand information. "Captured fugitives," the article notes, "are forced to do the hardest and roughest work. They are ordinarily placed in chains and are led in groups through the city's neighborhoods where they carry loads or sweep refuse in the streets. This type of slave is so frightful that, while they have lost all hope of fleeing again, they think of nothing but suicide. They poison themselves by drinking at one swallow a large quantity of strong liquor, or choke/suffocate themselves by eating dirt/earth. In order to deprive them of this way of causing their own deaths, they put a tin mask on their faces; the mask has only a very narrow slit in front of the mouth and a few little holes under the nose so they can breathe" (p. 229; our translation).

Slave Mask: Image Reference, NW0191. Source:Jacques Arago, Souvenirs d'un aveugle. Voyage autour du monde par M. J. Arago . . . (Paris, 1839-40), vol. 1, facing p. 119

Arago"s voyage took place between 1817 and 1820, during which time close to two months (early December to the end of January 1818) were spent in Brazil, particularly Rio de Janeiro. The engraving shown here, based on a sketch by Arago, is captioned "Chatiment des Esclaves, Brasil" (Punishment of Slaves). It shows an unidentified male and probably represents a composite of several enslaved Brazilians who Arago observed in the streets of Rio. This illustration is often confused and misidentified in secondary sources on slavery. Among other errors, such sources identify the subject as a woman, but Arago quite explicitly refers to the figure as a man. For a detailed discussion of this image and its historical context, see J. Handler and A. Steiner, "Identifying Pictorial Images of Atlantic Slavery: Three Case Studies," Slavery and Abolition 27 (2006), 56-62. The transformation of this image in Brazil in modern times to represent a martyred female slave is discussed in J. Handler and K. Hayes, "Escrava Anastacia: The Iconographic History of a Brazilian Popular Saint," African Diaspora: Journal of Transnational Africa in a Global World 2 (2009), 1-27

Image Reference BRIDG-4_IMG. Source: Richard Bridgens, West India Scenery...from sketches taken during a voyage to, and residence of seven years in ... Trinidad (London, 1836), plate 20. (Copy in Providence Atheneum, Rhode Island)

Comments: Caption, "Negro Heads, with punishments for Intoxication and dirt-eating." "The tin collar is a punishment for drunkenness in females," while the mask is "a punishment and preventative of . . . dirt eating." The illustration also shows facial and body scarification, or so-called "country marks," indicative of African origin; the man in the center right also displays filed or modified teeth, another indicator of African birth among West Indian slaves (see Jerome Handler, Determining African Birth from Skeletal Remains: A Note on Tooth Mutilation, Historical Archaeology [1994], vol. 28, pp. 113-119). There is no certain date of publication of Bridgens West India Scenery, though major libraries with copies of this work usually assign 1836 as a publication date. A sculptor, designer and architect, Bridgens was born in England in 1785. In 1825 he moved to Trinidad where his wife had inherited a sugar plantation. Although Bridgens apparently occasionally returned to England, he died in Port of Spain in 1846. Bridgens’ racist perspectives on enslaved Africans and his defense of slavery are discussed in T. Barringer, G. Forrester, and B. Martinez-Ruiz, Art and Emancipation in Jamaica: Isaac Mendes Belisario and his Worlds [ Yale University Press, 2007], pp. 460-461.

Slave Mask Image Reference, NW0192. Source: Thomas Branagan, The Penitential Tyrant; or, slave trader reformed (New York, 1807), p. 271. (Copy in Library Company of Philadelphia; also Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division, LC-USZ62-31864)

Comments: Bound into this abolitionist work, but consecutively paginated with the title poem, is a separate essay, "The Method of Procuring Slaves on the Coast of Africa; with an account of their sufferings on the voyage, and cruel treatment in the West Indies" (pp. 252-274). This essay is accompanied by a number of engravings, including the one show here, which is described (on p. 270) as follows: "A front and profile view of an African's head, with the mouth-piece and necklace, the hooks round which are placed to prevent an escapee when pursued in the woods, and to hinder them from laying down the head to procure rest. At A [see letter over mouth of figure on the right] is a flat iron which goes into the mouth, and so effectually keeps down the tongue, that nothing can be swallowed, not even the saliva, a passage for which is made through holes in the mouth-plate." On the lower right is an enlarged view of this mouth piece which "when long worn, becomes so heated as frequently to bring off the skin along with it." The lower left shows leg shackles used on the slave ships; also, "spurs used on some plantations in Antigua" (placed on the legs to prevent slaves from absconding). Another illustration in the Penitential Tyrant, which does not appear to be present in all copies of this work (and is not shown on this website) shows a slave lashed to an upright ladder, which is leaning against a tree, while being whipped by another slave as the slavemaster looks on.

The Scold's Bridle

A scold's bridle is a British invention, possibly originating in Scotland, used between the 16th and 19th Century. It was a device used to control, humiliate and punish gossiping, troublesome women by effectively gagging them. Scold comes from the 'common scold': a public nuisance, more often than not women, who habitually gossiped and quarrelled with their neighbours, while the name bridle describes a part that fitted into the mouth. The scold's bridle was also known as the 'gossiping bridle' and the 'Brank(s)', and was commonly used by husbands on their nagging or swearing wives. The device was occasionally used on men; however, it was primarily used on women who agitated the male-dominated society of the era. (image source: Old Electronic Library)

The Scold's Bridle 

Description: 

Made by blacksmiths, the bridle was a cage-like device, made from iron. It was approximately nine inches high and seven inches wide, and was fitted to the woman's head. The most basic type was made of a band of iron, which was hinged at the side and had a protruding part, or tongue piece, that could be flat or with a spike, which went into the woman's mouth, to hold her tongue down. Another band of iron went over her head, the front of which was shaped for her nose to go through. Depending on the design, the bridle could be uncomfortable, painful or torturous, and scarring of the tongue was not uncommon. Some had a bell secured to a spring, which was attached to the bridle, so the wearer could be heard as she approached.

The Scold's Bridle or Branks 

Judicial: 

Some houses had a hook in the wall at the side of the fireplace where the wife would be chained, until she promised to behave herself and curb her tongue. Although sometimes fitted to a nagging wife by the local gaoler (jailer) at the request of her husband, or by the husband himself, it was more often a punitive sentence ordered by a magistrate. Judicial bridles were more elaborate than the basic type; they always had at least one spike and they could be locked. They also had a chain attached to the side of the bridle, with a ring on the end. This could be used to publicly humiliate the woman by leading her through the town, or staking her at a designated area for a set time period. The amount of time the bridle was worn could be from 30 minutes to several hours, depending on the seriousness of the offence, during which time the miscreant would not be able to eat or drink. It was also said to be used on witches to prevent them from chanting or casting spells.

A water color by Jean Baptiste Debret (held by a museum in Rio de Janeiro); published in Ana Maria de Moraes, O Brasil dos viajantes (Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, 1994), image 469, p. 93. Also published in Jean Baptiste Debret, Viagem Pitoresca e Historica ao Brasil (Editora Itatiaia Limitada, Editora da Universidade de Sao Paulo, 1989), p.128, a reprint of the 1954 Paris edition, edited by R. De Castro Maya). (source: University of Virginia)

Shows a slave wearing a tin mask over his face; he is "heading" a large ceramic jar. Brazilian slavemasters compelled slaves who were prone to eat earth or dirt to wear such masks. This illustration does not appear to have been published in Debret's, Voyage Pittoresque et Historique au Bresil (Paris,1834-39), although another slave, wearing such a mask, is illustrated in vol. 2, plate 10, captioned "une visite a la campagne" (the image is not shown on this website). For a description of this mask in Brazil, see image reference ewbank3. The engravings in this book were taken from drawings made by Debret during his residence in Brazil from 1816 to 1831. For watercolors by Debret of scenes in Brazil, some of which were incorporated into his Voyage Pittoresque, see Jean Baptiste Debret, Viagem Pitoresca e Historica ao Brasil (Editora Itatiaia Limitada, Editora da Universidade de Sao Paulo, 1989; a reprint of the 1954 Paris edition, edited by R. De Castro Maya).

Brank ( aka the Scold's Bridle) The Medieval period of the Middle Ages was violent, and blood thirsty. In these barbarous times the cruel and pitiless torturers were induced to inflict the horrors of tortures, including the Brank, on prisoners by restrictive. Torture methods, devices and instruments were used to inflict the deliberate, systematic, cruel and wanton infliction of physical and mental suffering. There were no laws or rules to protect the treatment of prisoners who faced torture, such as the Brank ( aka the Scold's Bridle) by restrictive. Torture was seen as a totally legitimate means for justice to extract confessions, obtain the names of accomplices, obtain testimonies or confessions.

Crimes which warranted the use of / Method of inflicting the Brank

Different types of torture were used depending on the victim's crime and social status. There were also different tortures used for men and women. The Brank was also known as the Scold's Bridle and it was specifically used as a torture for women to inflict humiliation and discomfort as opposed to pain. A scold was a term given to a gossip, shrew or bad tempered woman during the Middle Ages. A scold was defined as: "A troublesome and angry woman who by brawling and wrangling amongst her neighbours breaks the public peace, increases discord and becomes a public nuisance to the neighbourhood." The device was a locking iron muzzle, metal mask or cage which encased the head. There was an iron curb projecting into the mouth which rested on the top of the tongue. This device prevented the shrew from speaking. In some instances the iron curb was studded with spikes which inflicted pain if the victim spoke. Some branks had a bell built in which drew attention to the scold as she walked through the streets. The woman would be humiliated by the jeering and comments from other people.

Nuclear Fatwa

Iran is the center of terrorism, fundamentalism and subversion and is in my view more dangerous than Nazism, because Hitler did not possess a nuclear bomb, whereas the Iranians are trying to perfect a nuclear option. Its time to get the issue straight, the people who hate America are only going to accept the answer they want to hear. That answer is 'its because America is a mean bully who wants to own the world. Wrong, America acknowledges that the weapons existence and use are extremely dangerous to the worlds stability. We already have nukes, but the more nations that get them, the more chance that someone will use them. America, along with many other countries, signed a treaty to limit the spread of these weapons. Has America played favoritism in its deterrent? Certainly, but not without reason. As any country, America must protect its country, as Iran is trying to do. I understand they want it as a deterrent, just as all countries do. So what is the difference between Iran and these countries? Islam. Why should America not fear a country with Islamic rule? They are not afraid to die. They openly admit to the desire to obliterate a country (no matter the reasons behind it). Their guiding book, the koran, which has influence over every part of irans government says the following "Slay them wherever you find them. Idolatry is worse than carnage. Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-) "Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." (Surah 2:216) "Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-) "If you should die or be slain in the cause of God, His forgiveness and His mercy would surely be better than all the riches." (Surah 3:156-) These are just a few I picked from many many similar quotes. So is America crazy for doing everything in their power to keeping nukes out of Iran, and any other non democratic, Islamic nations? Not in the slightest Iran has been waging an undeclared but deadly war against the West for decades. Funding and arming terrorist groups in any country that will shelter them. The majority of IEDs in Iraq are from Iran, they support the opposition with money and weapons. This is not a country that we can reach an accord, an understanding with that would allow us to "get along" without conflict. It is not just the leaders, a large segment of their population has been taught to hate and revile Western culture, achievement and faith. We are only putting off the inevitable and by doing so we endanger not only Israel but ourselves. Any one who believes Iran's nuclear ambitions are peaceful is as naive, gullible and frankly stupid as Chamberlain when he proclaimed 'peace in out time'. When will people learn arguably the most important lesson from history, that appeasement never works and only makes the situation worse. We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Muslim Values and Western Society

It seems most Western people are unaware of 1. Real Western values, 2. How our values form a safe society, 3. That these values need protection, and 4. That other cultures (Muslims) want to conquer our values and society. Western societies value individual freedom to choose, equality for all, honest fair dealing with others, innocent till proven guilty. These values (like it or not) come from Christian values to love God, love neighbours, and forgiveness. They result in democracies with politicians generally accountable, and independent courts decide on the rule of law. Democracy with insdividual choice plus capitalism where individuals can save and choose to invest is not perfect, but it is a least bad framework. Sadly, Muslim values are totally opposed to all those values and end up with the opposite results as their societies are riven by corruption, general repression, murders and chaos. They promote inequality and discrimination. They are based on apartheid by gender, race, colour and faith. The result is slavery flourishes in Muslim lands. UK muslims are even claiming welfare cheques are the jihax tax, a tax for being inferior, that kuffirs must pay muslim rulers! Despite the blatant discrimination and inequality defined in Islam, liberals seem unable to see the blatant apartheid. This shows the success of Islamic takeyya the Koranic code of deception to confuse and conquer kuffirs. Saud spending on propoganda is now more than the USSR at it's peak, and funds university posts, mosques everywhere and propoganda about how nice Spain was after conquest by Moors. Liberals are taken in by the repeats of 'islam is peace'. Islam means obedience. 100% Muslim states like Saudi Arabia only survive by huge police repression with extreme violence, death sentences and discrimination against all others such as women beaten for actions not authorised by their male owner. The key issue is violence implicit in muslim values with the death sentence for any free choice of another faith, or no faith. The cover of being a faith is used by muslims to deflect any criticism of their violence using alleged insults. While in fact the rules on violence have political and economic aims. Killing a political rival was Mohammed's main weapon, he even had a poetess who was critical of him murdered. And in his last 8 years he lead 70+ deadly raids killing off rival tribes and stealing booty to pay his followers. Western liberals seem totally unaware of how arbitrary violence is imbedded in muslim values. This violence does not need a court or any reference. There is no fair protection for the victim. It is a duty of a Muslim to kill another who changes faith. The concept is so inhuman and a denial of all human rights that liberals can not believe it is really true. This is the reverse of Western democracy. In islam personal and political disputes are often settled by murder, even domestic disputes in UK muslim homes suffer extreme violence and 'honour killings' are now known in the UK. They are a dishonour. Even ministers in Pakistan who want reform of 'blaphemy laws' have been murdered by their own bodyguards who are then hailed by Pakistani lawyers profitting from the laws. The whole edifice is based on superiority of Islam and enforcing that on others by violence and corruption is acceptable just results in social disintegration and chaos. This is the state of Pakistan now, only kept afloat by Western Aid money. Numbers of Muslim states are blackmailing the West to support them or they as Failed States they could become a danger. They operate islamic rules, collapse and need Western money to help them, while calling the West evil! The rich Muslim states give minimal help. Wikileaks revealed the Sauds demanding the West 'cut the head of the Iranian snake'. Saud has a powerful military, yet wants the West to do the dirty work. Pakistan takes $5Bn a year western aid, spends it's own money on nuclear bombs, and leaves 7 million children with no school. Of course they knew Bin Laden was in the huge compound beside the Pakistani Sandhurst. The ISI is deadly efficient running wars in Kashmir and Afghanistan. It has milked the West for money to combat terrorism, while promoting terrorism to keep the money flowing. Muslims know their rules promote violence and corruption and use that excuse to milk money from the gullible West. The Arab spring will become very bloody as tyrants increase violence and protesters become desperate, knowing if they lose they will be hunted down. But they have no choice. UK liberals seem unaware the burka and veil and muslim symbols are banned in many muslim lands as symbols of violent aggression. The claim of being for faith is takeyya, as there are no rules for total cover. The burka is a political message to support violent Muslim action. When will the left wing Liberals realise they have been sold out by Labour who imported millions of violent extremists who have far right wing policies. Labour wanted more voters regardless of the effect on the Uk and their own supporters. The 200+ islamic terror cells now in the UK were imported by Labour who subverted all national interests and common sense to get voters in.