Terrible! that some people will still indulge in this form of mental indolence to assuage their monstrous ego beat me i give it to you, you guys are as legendary in bigotry.

Terrible! that some people will still indulge in this form of mental indolence to assuage their monstrous ego beat me i give it to you, you guys are as legendary in bigotry.

Deep Sight: No sane person can deny that in war, all sides DO commit atrocities.

As such, it is very odd to read a discussion in which attempts are made to deny such.

Atrocities known, and atrocities unknown, no doubt occurred on both sides.

However, in deference to Dede, I must point out that it is of no use discussing atrocities without pointing out the persons who allegedly committed same. I say this not because I do not recognize PhysicQED's point - i do - namely that one cannot expect civilians to recognize specific military insignia - I say this for the simple reason that there is such a thing as a war crime - and needless to say, you cannot be discussing a crime in the absence of any accussed. Even where this is done, it is futile: i.e: there can be no trial. Who is to be tried? It is a perfect waste of time and emotion

The only plausible way to try anyone in such circumstances would be an uphill task: to show first that the crimes occurred and then to hold the living leaders of the accused side personally responsible for a war crime, one would have to also show that they personally authourized such. This is impossible, and for this reason I say that it is futile to attempt to talk about war crimes if one cannot, as Dede said, point a finger at those supposedly responsible.

On the other hand, Dede, for his part, was very specific in naming names and units and brigades involved in the crimes he alleged. That gave his allegations better credibility, and certainly make them prosecutable, as opposed to the futile discussion about crimes in which there is no accused person pointed at.

In my opinion, Physics QED did a great job of dismantling Dede's contention that civilians ought to recognize military insignia, for which Dede had no response, but persons who think that he thereby held the day are simply not clued on to the precise nature of proper debates. As I have said, Dede's contention that it is useless to refer to crimes without mentioning an accused remains very valid: and may I just point out that I AM NOT thus saying that the crimes did not occur, or are not tragic: I am only saying that it is futile to discuss such. Who would you try for such crimes, if they occurred? Ghosts?

I do not think PhysicsQED did any good job to dispute the fact about civilians being able to recognize military insignia. Rather the aforementioned poster proved one thing, thus, the allegation Biafran soldiers committed certain atrocities in Midwestern region was a mere conjecture and empty assertion borne out of delusion.

In the cases of Asaba, Ogba\Egbema and Obisi, the eyewitnesses were civilians not soldiers or CIA trained operatives. Yet they were able to cite the soldiers were Nigerians, 3MCDO or 2nd Division due to insignia on the soldiers who perpetrated the atrocities.

If the eyewitnesses had slightly waived on what they saw as identifiable reference of the soldiers such as Biafran raising sun emblem or 101 or black octopus or jumping white horse, there would have been doubt cast on claims by civilians that atrocities were committed in Asaba, Ogba\Egbema or Obisi.

However, it is foolhardy for denial artists and deluded civilians to wake one morning and decide to conjure a blatant falsehood about heinous crimes committed by Biafran soldiers without offering an iota of evidence to support such idiotic claims. It is even a crime for someone to deduce the so-called civilian eyewitnesses were halfwits who could not differentiate a badge of 101 from White Horse. It is safe to conclude that if the midwestern region eyewitness civilians were halfwits as writer suggested, the allegation of atrocities committed by Biafran soldiers in midwestern region might be a mere conjectural crap after all.

Dede1:

I do not think PhysicsQED did any good job to dispute the fact about civilians being able to recognize military insignia. Rather the aforementioned poster proved one thing, thus, the allegation Biafran soldiers committed certain atrocities in Midwestern region was a mere conjecture and empty assertion borne out of delusion.

In the cases of Asaba, Ogba\Egbema and Obisi, the eyewitnesses were civilians not soldiers or CIA trained operatives. Yet they were able to cite the soldiers were Nigerians, 3MCDO or 2nd Division due to insignia on the soldiers who perpetrated the atrocities.

If the eyewitnesses had slightly waived on what they saw as identifiable reference of the soldiers such as Biafran raising sun emblem or 101 or black octopus or jumping white horse, there would have been doubt cast on claims by civilians that atrocities were committed in Asaba, Ogba\Egbema or Obisi.

However, it is foolhardy for denial artists and deluded civilians to wake one morning and decide to conjure a blatant falsehood about heinous crimes committed by Biafran soldiers without offering an iota of evidence to support such idiotic claims. It is even a crime for someone to deduce the so-called civilian eyewitnesses were halfwits who could not differentiate a badge of 101 from White Horse. It is safe to conclude that if the midwestern region eyewitness civilians were halfwits as writer suggested, the allegation of atrocities committed by Biafran soldiers in midwestern region might be a mere conjectural crap after all.

First, please don't waste any more time in identifying the units in the pictures posted by PhysicsQED. It is simply disingenuous to persist with this position if you can not identify the units. You have the benefit of looking at pictures for several days. If you can't, how do you suppose civilians would have been able to identify such units.

Second, the Nigerian Army was better armed and its units were identifiable while some Biafran units didn't even have units. Identifying some units, who had men wearing slippers, would have been as difficult as identifying Hutu militia mobs during the Rwandan genocide.

Third, are you insinuating that Biafran units committed no atrocities during the war? If you are, I doubt you are well versed in the conduct and psychology of warfare.

Dede1:



I do not think PhysicsQED did any good job to dispute the fact about civilians being able to recognize military insignia. Rather the aforementioned poster proved one thing, thus, the allegation Biafran soldiers committed certain atrocities in Midwestern region was a mere conjecture and empty assertion borne out of delusion.

In the cases of Asaba, Ogba\Egbema and Obisi, the eyewitnesses were civilians not soldiers or CIA trained operatives. Yet they were able to cite the soldiers were Nigerians, 3MCDO or 2nd Division due to insignia on the soldiers who perpetrated the atrocities.

If the eyewitnesses had slightly waived on what they saw as identifiable reference of the soldiers such as Biafran raising sun emblem or 101 or black octopus or jumping white horse, there would have been doubt cast on claims by civilians that atrocities were committed in Asaba, Ogba\Egbema or Obisi.

However, it is foolhardy for denial artists and deluded civilians to wake one morning and decide to conjure a blatant falsehood about heinous crimes committed by Biafran soldiers without offering an iota of evidence to support such idiotic claims. It is even a crime for someone to deduce the so-called civilian eyewitnesses were halfwits who could not differentiate a badge of 101 from White Horse. It is safe to conclude that if the midwestern region eyewitness civilians were halfwits as writer suggested, the allegation of atrocities committed by Biafran soldiers in midwestern region might be a mere conjectural crap after all.

u are a dummy.

the biafran army was not a regular army. it was a rag tag rebel army. so it was far from being organised . but i'm sure with a little bit of research we can come up with names of those that commanded the troops in the midwest and rivers state that committed atrocities. plus igbo civilians are accused of committing atrocities as well. to suggest that atrocities did not occur because the names of those who committed them are not known , is stupid and ridiculous. at the end of the day . ojukwu who was the commander should be held responsible for all atrocities.

Katsumoto:

First, please don't waste any more time in identifying the units in the pictures posted by PhysicsQED. It is simply disingenuous to persist with this position if you can not identify the units. You have the benefit of looking at pictures for several days. If you can't, how do you suppose civilians would have been able to identify such units.

Second, the Nigerian Army was better armed and its units were identifiable while some Biafran units didn't even have units. Identifying some units, who had men wearing slippers, would have been as difficult as identifying Hutu militia mobs during the Rwandan genocide.

Third, are you insinuating that Biafran units committed no atrocities during the war? If you are, I doubt you are well versed in the conduct and psychology of warfare.

You simply can not cease to amaze me. I guess your first brief in defense of falsified allegation against Biafrans soldiers was that Biafrans are whiners and as such were able to easily identify the units of Nigerians soldiers who committed atrocity during the war.

When such reckless defense could not hold up to a scrutiny of toddler, you and ilk came up with most outlandish defense by stating that eyewitness civilians on the Nigerian side were borderline imbecilic nitwits who could not strike a difference between Nigerian and Biafran soldiers.

Again, when such useless defense falls apart like a park of cards, you jumped onto another flimsy excuse this time it is because Biafran army was not adequately equipped.
What has equipment got to do with dividing an army into units with identifiable insignia, at least, to avoid the instances of friendly fire? If the eyewitness civilian had seen soldiers who wore slippers and tatted uniforms, they should have said so. Unfortunately, the Biafran soldiers of 101 Division were well-equipped unit with insignia of the division as well of Biafran rising sun on their arms.

When the above ridiculous excuse fails to convince educated audiences, you latched onto the fact that war is always littered with atrocities. Granted that war can bring out the demon out of a human being is not a licensure for opposing sides to bear false allegation of commission of heinous crime against each other.

PhysicsQED is renowned denial artist and a staunch supporter of Nigeria such as you. So it does not faze me when such Nigerians post pictures of doctored Biafran soldiers who were probably on training mission as combat units.

buffny:

u are a dummy.

the biafran army was not a regular army. it was a rag tag rebel army. so it was far from being organised . but i'm sure with a little bit of research we can come up with names of those that commanded the troops in the midwest and rivers state that committed atrocities. plus igbo civilians are accused of committing atrocities as well. to suggest that atrocities did not occur because the names of those who committed them are not known , is stupid and ridiculous. at the end of the day . ojukwu who was the commander should be held responsible for all atrocities.

You simply personify idiocy and buffoonery. If Biafran army was not well organized fighting unit, it begs for clarification why the military help from British, USSR, Egypt, Niger, Chad, Australia and Cameroon failed woefully to defeat Biafra in a year. Be mindful that British had predicated the war should be over in two weeks, olodo.

Dede1:



You simply personify idiocy and buffoonery. If Biafran army was not well organized fighting unit, it begs for clarification why the military help from British, USSR, Egypt, Niger, Chad, Australia and Cameroon failed woefully to defeat Biafra in a year. Be mindful that British had predicated the war should be over in two weeks, olodo.

stupid dummy. a high ranking biafran official gave an eyewitness account of murders committed by igbos against non igbos and you are still debating whether its factual or not.

I read the arguments on the civil war with great interest; particularly the discourse between dede1 and kats- without the abuses anyway. It appears to me that the only one point on which most Nigerians are united is perhaps the opposition against "Ibo perceived dominance". And there have aggressive counter attacks by many Ibo folks. This persist mainly between two groups (Ibo and Yoruba) who are more prosperous than the rest of other tribes and who had cross bred more than the rest. At sometimes think it’s a case of family rivalry for dominance, visibility and relevance; at other times I think it’s more than that. If Nigeria divides today these groups of people may miss the company of each and may realize how important they the other is. For me I will miss the unending debate- that amuses me a lot. But I must confess I love the strength of argument, presentation, organization and content. I simply come to Naira land looking out for Ibo vs Yoruba debate.
Ibo however their industry and intelligence believed that Awolowo was a betrayal therefore the rest of Yoruba. It is important to understand that Awolowo acted for himself and his actions and assertion during those times were not the collective position of the Yoruba people. Otherwise how would you explain stories we have all heard about Yorubas returning houses in Lagos owned by Ibo while in next door rivers states those houses were declared abandoned property and confiscated by the state government- names of Ibo street were changed etc. A Yoruba friend of mine tells me how the fathers hide some Ibo people from the Nigerian army in Okitipupa. However, Awolowo been the most influential figure of the Yoruba race at the time, it is easy to misconstrue he acted for the interest of the race- which in my opinion may not be very correct. Please correct me m wrong I do not claim absolute knowledge of these things.
I have had people criticize Achebe’s book and wonders why anyone will condemn a man’s perspective of an event when that man has not shared the experience and conditions that created the other man’s perspective. The man simply gave his perspective on the Biafran case. He said good things about Wole Soyinka and even Aminu Kano. The Ibos should thank their God for the sprit, industry, resilience and intelligence that they have been blessed with in abundance. They are in my judgment perhaps the most enterprising of all races in Nigeria. They have come from nothing after the civil war to dominate the country’s commerce, maintain significant control on the economy and have forged ahead in many other sectors other than politics. I believe the Ibo lack political coherence due largely due to their republican nature, ideology and independence which limits their ability to unit. But time has come for them to forgive the misgoverning of the war as simply happening of war, although very difficult I agree not having lost loved ones and marginalized in a country you call your own. The rest of Nigeria should be more accommodating and less resenting of the Ibo man. The alternative to this will be to peacefully divide the country and let all ethnic group forge alliance as appropriate to their peacefully coexistence.

Dede1:

When such reckless defense could not hold up to a scrutiny of toddler, you and ilk came up with most outlandish defense by stating that eyewitness civilians on the Nigerian side were borderline imbecilic nitwits who could not strike a difference between Nigerian and Biafran soldiers.

I never at any time said anything like this nor did Katsumoto or anyone else. This is not about whether one could tell the Nigerian and Biafran soldiers apart, but whether one could identify all Biafran soldiers by their unit.

You claim that the exact units and commanders of the "Liberation Army" that was occupying the Midwest should have been identified by civilians as if those civilians had spontaneously decided to engage in some reconnaissance mission for which they had no expertise. Yet you seem to ignore the reality that the means of identifying them by insignia were mostly nonexistent for most soldiers and you also seem oblivious to the fact that the significance of any insignia, whether they indicated the branch, unit, or even rank of any soldier would not have been clear to civilians.

What has equipment got to do with dividing an army into units with identifiable insignia, at least, to avoid the instances of friendly fire? If the eyewitness civilian had seen soldiers who wore slippers and tatted uniforms, they should have said so. Unfortunately, the Biafran soldiers of 101 Division were well-equipped unit with insignia of the division as well of Biafran rising sun on their arms.

And what was the insignia of the division? (Not that that is even what is being discussed, but just for the record.)

Anyway, this argument cannot be about the insignia of the entire division, but about the insignia of the units that made up the division since you wanted units and their commanders to have been identified. If you think the issue is whether the entire division needed to be identified by insignia, then I don't see what sense you're making. There is not some sort of confusion about what the division occupying the Midwest was.

When the above ridiculous excuse fails to convince educated audiences, you latched onto the fact that war is always littered with atrocities. Granted that war can bring out the demon out of a human being is not a licensure for opposing sides to bear false allegation of commission of heinous crime against each other.

False allegation? I am not silly enough to believe that there were no atrocities that followed the looting of parts of the region during the occupation and I am not silly enough to accept the naive and ignorant assumptions of people who think that the soldiers on the "good" side (whatever one holds that to be) in a war don't ever commit atrocities and that only the "bad" side do such things. For all the criticism Zik has received from many different people from different places, it is to his credit that he was at least man enough to acknowledge what happened there when he did. Unfortunately, I can't say the same about some modern day denial engineers who insist on deluding themselves.

So it does not faze me when such Nigerians post pictures of doctored Biafran soldiers who were probably on training mission as combat units.

Yet another masterstroke from a master evasion artist.

If I intended to post a training picture, I would have posted something like this:

http://www.apimages.com/OneUp.aspx?st=k&kw=nigeria%20ethnic%20groups&showact=results&sort=relevance&intv=none&sh=14&kwstyle=or&adte=1353439601&pagez=60&cfasstyle=AND&rids=ec36c3da1084407fb6d7c44e5666b6f6&dbm=SContent&page=1&xslt=1&mediatype=Photo

and I would have said it was a training picture.

None of the photos below are "training mission" pictures, as the captions and even the content of some of the pictures indicate. Now can you identify the units these soldiers are in?:

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/biafran-national-army-soldiers-prepare-to-resist-a-federal-news-photo/76052069

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/africa-nigeria-civil-war-biafra-under-fire-soldiers-hauling-news-photo/97366215

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/africa-nigeria-civil-war-biafra-at-the-front-line-young-news-photo/97366173

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/africa-nigeria-civil-war-biafra-same-officer-as-previous-news-photo/97366184

By the way, I doubt that you have even read the Oputa panel's report, otherwise you could not possibly cite that panel as a source which claims that there were no atrocities committed by Biafran troops, since its report claims the exact opposite. This is not to say that I think that their report is comprehensive or a final pronouncement on the matter, since it definitely leaves out some things, but just to say that their report does not support your position, but actually opposes it.