Friday, June 13, 2008

The Scheming to Null the Irish NO Vote Begins

That didn't take long. Let the scheming begin! The people are stupid and must be ignored!

Irish Voters Appear to Reject Treaty on Europe
Published: June 14, 2008

DUBLIN — In a significant setback for efforts to reform Europe’s unwieldy institutions, a senior Irish official said Friday that voters had rejected a revised European Union treaty designed to change the way the bloc governs itself and presents itself to the world.

If that outcome is confirmed in official results, it will mean that the 27-member bloc will be in turmoil, its latest attempt to reform stymied by less than one percent of its population of almost 500 million.

Justice Minister Dermot Ahern declared on television: “It looks like this will be a ‘no’ vote. At the end of the day, for a myriad of reasons, the people have spoken.”

Speaking later on Irish radio he said: “We are in uncharted territory.”

Even though there was no final, official tally, Micheal Martin, the minister of foreign affairs, acknowledged: “Perhaps there is a disconnect between the European institution and its people that we need to reflect on.”

In France, senior officials insisted that, whatever the Irish outcome, other European countries must continue their procedures to approve the treaty.

“The most important thing is that the ratification process must continue in the other countries and then we shall see with the Irish what type of legal arrangement could be found,” Jean-Pierre Jouyet, the French minister for European affairs, told LCI television. He did not specify what form this legal arrangement might take.

“We cannot take a country out of Europe that has been there for 35 years,” Mr. Jouyet added. “But we can find specific means of cooperation.”

The apparent defeat will present France with a major headache as it prepares to take over the rotating presidency of the European Union for six months on July 1.

President Nicolas Sarkozy declined to comment Friday before the official result was announced but said he had agreed with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany to issue a joint statement on the outcome.

Prime Minister Francois Fillon had warned Thursday that a “no” vote would mean the end of the Lisbon Treaty, but still appeared to suggest that an impasse could averted. “We must remain within the framework of the Lisbon treaty,” Mr. Jouyet said.
Andrew Duff, a British member of the European Parliament who supports the treaty and the spokesman on constitutional issues for the Liberal Democrats, described the vote as a “tragedy for Ireland, the E.U. and Europe’s place in the world”.

“The problems the treaty was established to address are still there: effectiveness, democracy and capacity to act,” he said. “If the outcome of this is that we are obliged to struggle on with the existing treaty, then the Irish will have done no favors for themselves or us.”

Mr. Duff added that EU leaders will have to try to assemble a new strategy when they meet for a summit in Brussels next Thursday.

“I think the Irish prime minister, Brian Cowen, will have to explain himself at the summit. If he brings a credible and coherent proposal to extricate the EU from this mess, then he will be listened to. But I suspect he can’t because there isn’t one.”

“I think we are probably going to have to wait for quite a considerable time before political circumstances have improved to the degree necessary to acquire public consent.”

Officials began counting votes Friday after a referendum Thursday on the so-called Lisbon Treaty. The official result was expected late Friday afternoon.

Ireland is the only country in the European Union to put the pact to a referendum. The other member states are approving it through their parliaments and 18 have backed it so far , but European Union rules require unanimous support for the treaty to come into effect.

The apparent defeat followed an emotional campaign that ranged over many topics not directly connected with the treaty.

Those who supported the treaty accused their adversaries of confusing the issue for voters, leading them to make their decisions for reasons other than an assessment of the Lisbon accord.

“It is very regrettable that totally untrue arguments about taxation, abortion, neutrality and even euthanasia have been put before the Irish people,” Mr. Cowen said Thursday.

The Lisbon Treaty is 287 pages long and many voters have complained that it is difficult to understand. It is supposed to make the EU function more efficiently, its supporters say, and would give the European Union its first full-time president and create a new and powerful foreign policy chief. The Irish government and political establishment has been campaigning for a “yes” vote, but a surge of opposition recalled earlier occasions when Irish voters rejected European initiatives.

The Lisbon Treaty emerged after voters in France and the Netherlands rejected a European constitution in 2005.

“The problem is that it’s not a very exciting treaty,” Gail McElroy, a lecturer in political science at Trinity College Dublin said before Thursday’s vote. “Institutional efficiency is very hard to get people excited about.”


Anonymous said...

This entire process shows the concept of European Union, and a single constitution is flawed and strongly against liberty and self determination. Somehow Ireland was able to thwart the goal of installing a new government without approval of the governed. The European power brokers will try to make them pay. Self determination is bad, when the bureaucrats want control

Anonymous said...

Ireland has had enough to its back teeth after suffering horribly for 800 years under the yoke of the most unpeaceful people on earth - the English. Naturally, the bitterness o being enslaved lingers in the vertebrae of every living Irish who , rightly, and with spine rejected the Treaty that would to protect national interests and public´s constitutional rights and privileges. Why should anyone submit their country and people to a nameless, faceless, corrupt bunch of heinous bureaucrats akin to blood sucking vultures sitting in Brussels plotting, plotting their evil agenda to dominate and render the 500 million Europeans sheeple? When the French and Dutch rejected the Referendum they were smart enough to realise they were being condemned as "frogs on the slow boil". Their "NON" arose in one chorus in the nameof liberty.
The Irish merely took it from there. Good for them. Salutations to the Irish for exercising your massive distrust of the establishment.

Britain's Gordon Brown sold both country, crown, people and any shred of dignity and integrity to save his butt and ensure his fingers are deep in the pie. Britons are thus slaved from within and without. No Referendum called for. Blame yourself guys. You asked for it.
Carry on more with the stiff upper lip as you walk daily into your doom.

The Washington Post reports, “The victory for the ‘No’ camp means a country with fewer than 1 percent of the EU’s 490 million population could wreck a treaty painstakingly negotiated over years by leaders of all 27 member states.”

After France and the Netherlands rejected the 2005 version of the European Constitution in national referendums, EU leaders determined to revise the treaty
leaders renamed the constitution the Lisbon Treaty and again submitted it to the member states for ratification. This time it was ratified by 16 nations before the Irish rejected it. Interestingly, Ireland was the only nation in submit the treaty to referendum. Hat off to the Irish! They are smart and spine enough to know that the Treaty would undermine Ireland’s influence in Europe, would open the door to interference in taxation and enshrine EU law above Irish law.

What now of the Irish rejection? Ireland has just won its first round. Ahead is the relentless greed of the fascist EU. Months ago Sarkozy on a visit to Germany said “The eventuality of an Irish rejection would be a problem not only for the French presidency but for Europe,” “It’s for the Irish to decide on this, but what Madame Merkel and I have decided is that, whatever happens, the reaction will be a Franco-German one" Reacting to the result, European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso insisted the treaty was "still alive.

So this will be the catalyst that spurs Europe on to greater unity—in an undemocratic sort of way. And the West lectures to the East on democracy!! Pah.

The fact is that the EU has already become too big and unwieldy to manage under its current government system. Out of the 27 nations one nation will emerge as the Leader - Germany.

So be ready to read more , if the MSM is allowed to report, or from blogs and see the evil machinations of the greedy fascists out to enslave, torture and live off the sweat of people and they call it Democracy, Unity, for the good of the people. Watch the mechanisms go into play to sideline Ireland and wreak havoc.
War in the offing amidst bickering and infighting across Europe? Target?

John Sobieski said...

Speaking of the evil Gordon Brown, he did a major speech in the US and it was so CONTINENTAL! To him, there is no England, no English culture worth preserving. A real globalist believer. Enemy.

Anonymous said...


Do we Do we blame Brown or the fact that had John Major’s government resisted signing that document 16 years ago, Gordon Brown’s government of today would not be faced with the ignominious decision it has taken to deny the British public their right to a referendum on the latest treaty that has evolved since Maastricht. This present perverse Lisbon Treaty is a veritable European Constitution in disguise that will hammer home the final nail in the democracy that once was Great Britain.
Veil the British bastion of democracy—hail the new Roman Empire!

The ugly truth and bitter reality
is not only Britain that will be affected by the Brown government’s yielding to the will of the Eurocrats. Every democratic nation that is a member of the EU will suffer the same fate. Yet the voices for freedom and democracy within Europe are being effectively ignored, or even worse, silenced.


Anonymous said...

For The Benefit of Pedestrian Infidels esteemed readers:

The following are excerpts from another perceptive source about the real nature of the EU. Written by Anthony Coughlan, a professor and senior lecturer emeritus in social policy at Trinity College Dublin, this article, aptly titled “These Boots Are Gonna Walk All Over You,” details the 10 most important things the Lisbon Treaty does. It was published on the Brussels Journal December 2007?

1. The Lisbon Treaty establishes a legally quite new European Union. This is a Union in the constitutional form of a supranational European state:

The treaty gives this new Union a state constitution, which is identical in its legal effects to the EU constitution that French and Dutch voters rejected in their 2005 referendums. …

The provision of the Lisbon Treaty that “The Union shall replace and succeed the European Community” (Art.1.3, amended teu) makes absolutely clear that the post-Lisbon Union will be quite a new entity, as the European Community of which our countries are all currently members ceases to exist.

2. The treaty empowers this new European Union to act as a state vis-a-vis other states and its own citizens:

To understand the change introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, one needs to understand that what we call the European Union today is not a state. It is not even a legal or corporate entity in its own right, for it does not have legal personality. The name “European Union” at present is a descriptive term for all the relations between its 27 member states. …

The Lisbon Treaty changes this situation by creating a constitutionally and legally quite new EU, while retaining the same name, the “Union.” Unlike the present European Union, this legally new EU will be separate from and superior to its member states ….

This new European Union can sign treaties with other states in all areas of its competence and conduct itself as a state in the international community of states. It can speak at the United Nations on agreed foreign-policy positions of its member states ….

The Lisbon Treaty also gives the EU a political president, a foreign minister—to be called a high representative—a diplomatic corps and a public prosecutor. The new EU will accede to the European Convention on Human Rights, as all other European states have already done, including those outside the EU.

The treaty also sets out the principle of the primacy of the laws of the new Union over the laws of its member states (Declaration 27). The new EU makes the majority of laws for its member states each year and under the Lisbon Treaty the new Union, which will replace the European Community, gets further power to make laws or take decisions by qualified majority vote in relation to some 68 new policy areas or matters where member states currently have a veto.

3. The treaty makes us all real citizens of this new European Union for the first time, instead of our being notional or honorary European “citizens” as at present:

A state must have citizens and one can only be a citizen of a state.

Citizenship of the European Union at present is stated to “complement” national citizenship, the latter being clearly primary, not least because the present EU is not a state. …

By transforming the legal character of the Union, the Lisbon Treaty transforms the meaning of Union citizenship. Article.17b.1 tec/tfu replace the word “complement” in the sentence “Citizenship of the Union shall complement national citizenship,” so that the new sentence reads: “Citizenship of the Union shall be in addition to national citizenship.” This gives the 500 million inhabitants of the present EU member states a real separate citizenship from citizenship of their national states for the first time. … The rights and duties attaching to this citizenship of the new Union are [to] be superior to those attaching to citizenship of one’s own national state in any case of conflict between the two, because of the superiority of EU law over national law and constitutions. …

Although we will be given rights as EU citizens, we should not forget that as real citizens of the new European Union, we also owe it the normal citizens’ duty of obedience to its laws and loyalty to its authority, which will be a higher authority than that of our national states and constitutions.

Member states retain their national constitutions, but they are subordinate to the new Union Constitution. …

4. To hide the enormity of the change, the same name—European Union—will be kept, while the Lisbon Treaty changes fundamentally the legal and constitutional nature of the Union. By this means, the importance of the proposed change is kept hidden from the people:

The change in the constitutional nature of both the Union and its member states will be made in three legal steps that are set out in the treaty:

a) It establishes a European Union with an entire legal personality and independent corporate existence in all Union areas for the first time, so that it can function as a state vis-a-vis other states and in relation to its own citizens (Art.32, amended teu);

b) This new European Union replaces the existing European Community and takes over all of its powers and institutions. It takes over as well the “intergovernmental” powers over foreign policy and crime, justice and home affairs which at present are outside the scope of European law, leaving only the Common Foreign and Security Policy outside the scope of its supranational power (Art.11.1, amended teu). …

c) It makes us all real citizens of the new federal union which the treaty establishes, with all the implications of that for downgrading our present personal status as citizens of sovereign nation states and superseding it by citizenship of a supranational European Federation.

5. It creates a Union Parliament for the Union’s new citizens:

The Lisbon Treaty/EU constitution makes members of the European Parliament, who at present are “representatives of the peoples of the member states,” into “representatives of the Union’s citizens” (Art.9a, amended teu). This illustrates the constitutional shift the treaty makes from the present European Union of national states and peoples to the new federal Union of European citizens and their national states—the latter henceforth reduced constitutionally and politically to provincial or regional status.

6. It creates a cabinet government of the new Union:
The treaty turns the European Council, the quarterly “summit” meetings of member state heads of state or government, into an institution of the new Union, so that its acts and failures to act will, like all other Union institutions, be subject to legal review by the EU Court of Justice.

Legally speaking these summit meetings of the European Council will no longer be “intergovernmental” gatherings of prime ministers and presidents outside supranational European structures. As part of the new EU´s institutional framework, they will instead be constitutionally required to “promote the Union’s values, advance its objectives, serve its interests” and “ensure the consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions” (Art.9, amended teu). They will also “define the general political direction and priorities thereof” (Art.9b).

The European Council thus becomes in effect the cabinet government of the new federal EU, and its individual members will be primarily obliged to represent the Union to their member states rather than their member states to the Union.

7. It creates a new Union political president:

The federalist character of the European Council “summit” meetings in the proposed new Union structure is further underlined by the provision which gives the European Council a permanent political president for up to five years (2½ years renewable once) (Art.9b).

There is no gathering of heads of state or government in any other international context which maintains the same chairman or president for several years while individual national prime ministers and prime ministers come and go. …

8. It creates a civil rights code for the new Union’s citizens:

All states have codes setting out the rights of their citizens. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights will be that. It will be made legally binding by the new treaty and will be an essential part of the new Union’s constitutional structure (Art.6, amended teu).

The charter is stated to be binding on the Union’s own institutions and on member states in implementing Union law. This limitation to EU law and to the EU institutions is unrealistic however, because:

a) The principles of primacy and uniformity of Union law mean that member states will not only be bound by the Fundamental Rights Charter when implementing EU law, but also through the “interpretation and application of their national laws in conformity with Union laws” (v. ecj judgments in the Factortame, Simmenthal and other law cases); and because

b) The Charter sets out fundamental rights in areas in which the Union has currently no competence, e.g. outlawing the death penalty, asserting citizens’ rights in criminal proceedings and various other areas.

This gives a new and extensive human and civil rights jurisdiction to the EU Court of Justice and makes that court the final body to decide what people’s rights are in the vast area covered by European law, as against national supreme courts and the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg—the latter court serving all other European states, not just the EU members—which are our final fundamental rights courts today. …

9. It makes national parliaments subordinate to the new Union:

The treaty underlines the subordinate role of national parliaments in the constitutional structure of the new Union by stating that “National parliaments shall contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union” by various means set out in Article 8c, amended teu. The imperative “shall” implies an obligation on national parliaments to further the interests of the new Union.

National parliaments have in any case already lost most of their law-making powers to the EC/EU. The citizens who elect them have lost their powers to decide these laws too.

The provision of the treaty that if one third of the national parliaments object to a Commission proposal, the Commission must reconsider it but not necessarily abandon it, is small compensation for the loss of democracy involved by the loss of 68 vetoes by national parliaments as a result of other changes proposed by the Lisbon Treaty.

10. It gives the new Union self-empowerment powers:

These are shown by:

a) the enlarged scope of the Flexibility Clause (Art.308 tec/tfu), whereby if the treaty does not provide the necessary powers to enable the new Union [to] attain its very wide objectives, the Council may take appropriate measures by unanimity. The Lisbon Treaty extends this provision from the area of operation of the common market to all of the new Union’s policies directed at attaining its much wider objectives. The Flexibility Clause has been widely used to extend EU law-making over the years;

b) the proposed “Simplified Treaty Revision Procedure” which permits the prime ministers and presidents on the European Council to shift Union decision-taking from unanimity to qualified majority voting in the “Treaty on the Functioning of the Union” (Art.33.6, amended teu), where the population size of certain member states is likely to be decisive; and

c) the several “ratchet-clauses” or “passerelles” which would allow the European Council to switch from unanimity to majority voting in certain specified areas such as judicial cooperation in civil matters (Art.69d.3.2), in criminal matters (Art.69f.2), in relation to the EU public prosecutor (69i.4), and in a number of other areas.

Professor Coughlan concluded his analysis:

It is hard to think of any major function of a state which the new European Union will not have once the Lisbon Treaty is ratified. The main one seems to be the power to make its member states go to war against their will. The treaty does provide that the EU may go to war while individual member states may “constructively abstain.”

The obligation on the Union to “provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies” (Art. tec/tfu 269a), which means raising its “own resources” to finance them, may be regarded as conferring on it wide taxation and revenue-raising powers, although these will require unanimity to exercise. …

However the new European Union will have its own government, with a legislative, executive and judicial arm, its own political president, its own citizens and citizenship, its own human and civil rights code, its own currency, economic policy and revenue, its own international treaty-making powers, foreign policy, foreign minister, diplomatic corps and United Nations voice, its own crime and justice code and public prosecutor. It already possesses such normal state symbols as its own flag, anthem, motto and annual official holiday.

As regards the state authority of the new Union, it is embodied in the Union’ s own executive, legislative and judicial institutions: the European Council, Council of Ministers, Commission, Parliament and Court of Justice. It is also embodied in the member states and their authorities as they implement and apply EU law and interpret and apply national law in conformity with Union law. Member states will be constitutionally required to do this under the Lisbon Treaty. Thus EU “state authorities” as represented for example by soldiers and policemen in EU uniforms on our streets are not needed as such.

Allowing for the special features of each case, all the classical federal states which have been formed on the basis of power being surrendered by lower constituent states to a higher federal authority have developed in a gradual way, just as has happened in the case of the European Union. Nineteenth-century Germany, the usa, Canada and Australia are classical examples. Indeed the EU has accumulated its powers much more rapidly than some of these federal states—in the short historical time span of some 60 years.

The key difference between these classical federations and the new European Union is that the former, once their people had settled, share a common language, history, culture and national solidarity that gave them a democratic basis and made their state authority popularly legitimate and acceptable. All stable states are founded on such communities where people speak a common language and mutually identify with one another as one people—a “we.” In the EU however there is no European people or “demos,” except statistically. The Lisbon Treaty is an attempt to construct a highly centralized European federation artificially, from the top down, out of Europe’s many nations, peoples and states, without their free consent and knowledge.

If there were to be a European federation that is democratic and acceptable, the minimum constitutional requirement for it would be that its laws would be initiated and approved by the directly elected representatives of the people either in the European Parliament or the national parliaments. Unfortunately, neither the Lisbon Treaty nor the EU constitution it establishes contain any such proposBy giving a constitution indirectly rather than directly to the new European Union which it will establish, the Lisbon Treaty sets in place what Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt has called the “capstone of a European federal state.” For the Euro-federalist political elites who have been driving this process over decades this is the culmination of what started nearly 60 years ago when the 1950 Schuman Declaration, which is commemorated annually on
May 9, Europe Day, proclaimed the European Coal and Steel Community to be the “first step in the federation of Europe.”Unquote.

Read and Weep.


John Sobieski said...

Certainly Brown is another snake in a long line of snakes selling snake oil. It is depressing to see so few leaders in Europe who aren't globalists deadset on destroying the cultures and identities of the countries that make up the EU.

Anonymous said...


The EU’s evil globalist role as the self-proclaimed world business regulation authority. Case in point:

Back in March 2004, the European Union fined Microsoft €497 million for alleged abuse of its dominant market position. It sought to impose certain restrictions on Microsoft’s business practices. Then in July 2006, after an appeal by Microsoft against the EU’s original decision, the EU fined Microsoft an additional €280.5 million for allegedly failing to comply with its original ruling. It all came to a head on September 17, when the European Court of First Instance ruled that Microsoft had lost its case on all substantial matters of fact and law.

The European Court maintained that it was essentially seeking “a level playing field
In actuality, through this momentous decision the European Union has manipulated itself into taking over the high ground in all future global business practices.

European watcher Rodney Atkinson observed, the collectivist EU is not dissimilar to the collectivist Third Reich in the structure of its institutions and in the achievements of its objectives.

Blair sold his country out when he was pm during his first tenurewhen he capitulated to the EU. Tbe British people were lobotomized or what to vote NuLabour in again?
Today, as a catholic and as president of the EU he gets a palatial mansion, a retinue of servants, and his own personal jet. Why should Gordon Brown , the cabin boy when the captain (Blair) deserted the sinking ship , forgo such benefits?

As Shakespeare wrote in Richard ii, “This England that was wont to conquer others hath made a shameful conquest of itself.”


Anonymous said...

Thanks everyone for a brilliant summary of what this all adds up to.
Thanks "ea" once again for such a wealth of additional information.
"No Referendum called for. Blame yourself guys. You asked for it."
Slight correction,
Tony Blair promised! a referendum as part of his election manifesto.
He reneged on the deal and the baton was passed to Gordon Brown, hence he dodged the issue.
He is a prime candidate for the plum Presidential job, and all the wallowing in pride and wealth that will bring him.
The Conservatives have consistently opposed further integration and are Britain's last hope of resistance, as they are the only significant major Party who will do so.
A millionair Conservative sponsor has taken out a legal challeng that the election promise has a legally binding implication.
The judge has "reserved" his judgement.
QWe may yet get a referendum.
The fear of "global warming" and economic downturn, are the skeletons in the cupboard whose bone are rattled to frighten us into accepting the "inevitability "of |Euro expansion, the honey in the fly trap, has been cheap "EasyJet" travel for Euro citizens around the Continent, and the "benefits" of Global Trade Deals, that is, cheap bananas and Peruvian runner beans at any time of year (as if we need it.)
Europe has provided a tide of cheap labour moving from market place to market place within Europe.
The trusty Poles arrived by the million and now are leaving once more, as the Pound Stirling has nosedived against the value of the Euro.
All this world economic gloom is purely bull-sh+t, as everything is in place to control what happens financially world-wide.
It suits all the Western governments to spread trepidation among the People, as it gives more leverage and control when we are uncertain.
What will be interesting is the collective reaction to a massive Islamic attack against an iconic Nation, such as Italy, with it proximity to our "friendly" Mid-East neighbours.
I bet the Euro Defence Forces will cock it all up in response, as the clamouring fat-bastads of the Eurocrats fight each other over the way forward.
Give me clear National interest every time.
Read and weep?
The game ain't over yet.

Anonymous said...

anonymous 6.39 - excellent exchange, sir. I did a little research, may I share with you? You wrote: //The Conservatives have consistently opposed further integration and are Britain's last hope of resistance, as they are the only significant major Party who will do so./// Shocking it is, Britain was railroaded into what is now the European Union by Edward Heath convincing the British public of his blatant LIE that the union was nothing more than an innocuous trading entity.
Patriotic Brits never really felt comfortable with its membership when they investigated deep and discovered that the EU is really about loss of national sovereignty to a federalizing, centralist, Brussels-based government. The then German ambassador at the time suggested that the best thing that nation could do is to up and leave the EU. Which succeeding "leaders" did not. So in layman's understanding, being a member of the EU would make the Queen a mere, ordinary pedestrian.
And that is precisely what suits the hate, loathe Britain and its Monarchy NuLabour.

However, concur with you that the fight is not over and the EU will get its way, after all.

///What will be interesting is the collective reaction to a massive Islamic attack against an iconic Nation, such as Italy, with it proximity to our "friendly" Mid-East neighbours.///

Europe is well prepared for this. The Pope has an anti-terrorist squad. Germany, never a democracy, will perform its usual blitzkrieg on muslims.
Thermobaric Hellfires which Britain has ordered will solve the muslim problem.
Thermobaric warheads operate by dispersing an inflammable mist, then igniting it. This produces an explosion that kills by sucking the oxygen out of the surrounding areas, as well as creating a powerful blast. Fired into a building, the thermobaric explosion would kill more people inside, and do less damage to adjacent structures. These warheads work better on caves than any other kind of weapon. Thermobaric warheads have been used with great success in shoulder fired rocket launchers. U.S. Troops have been using these for several years, as well as the Hellfire missiles so equipped.

Actually, it was the Russians who first developed small thermobaric warheads but the West and the Europeans consider the Russians a bunch of barbarians
And that is another story.

Forget about all those nerds pontificating that Europe has a long history of trying to outlaw "inhumane" weapons. Read history. One of the earliest efforts was against the cross bow. However, this terrible weapon (which enabled a poorly trained commoner to easily bring down an armored aristocrat on horseback), Thermobaric Hellfire will mostly be used to kill muslims. My bet.