Katsumoto: TerraCotta

That was very detailed and to the point. Very nice

i smell bromance

from his profile terracotta is a blast from nl's past - a time when it was a small community run by intellectuals

TerraCotta: The most important evidence to absolve Awolowo, Gowon and the British government of the charge that they deliberately starved Biafrans comes from eyewitnesses—medical personnel, journalists and other observers in Biafra at the time. As Awolowo and other contemporary observers noted, the food and supplies sent to Biafra were systematically looted and hoarded by an elite cabal. Their decision to stop sending food was triggered by their realization that ordinary Biafrans would not be fed.

Let's start with Awolowo's quote. As is the usual practice of dishonest characters, the poster above selectively edits the passage to fit an agenda. I think it’s crucial to read the full portion so I’ll reproduce it here with some particularly important sections highlighted.

Oga, you ignored the more relevant of Awolowo's quotes like this one:

“But when I went what did I see? I saw the kwashiorkor victims. If you see a kwashiorkor victim you’ll never like war to be waged. Terrible sight, in Enugu, in Port Harcourt, not many in Calabar, but mainly in Enugu and Port Harcourt. Then I enquired what happened to the food we were sending to the civilians. We were sending food through the Red Cross, and CARITAS to them, but what happen was that the vehicles carrying the food were always ambushed by the soldiers. That’s what I discovered, and the food would then be taken to the soldiers to feed them, and so they were able to continue to fight. And I said that was a very dangerous policy, we didn’t intend the food for soldiers. … So I decided to stop sending the food there. In the process, the civilians would suffer, but the soldiers suffered most. –Chief Obafemi Awolowo.

The important point is that civilian children and women died en mass as a result of Awo's actions, even Awolowo admitted this fact and your epistle did nothing to change this fact.

ndu_chucks:

The important point is that civilian children and women died en mass as a result of Awo's actions, even Awolowo admitted this fact and your epistle did nothing to change this fact.

Awo's boast or claim as to why he starved INNOCENT children and women in Biafra, in his own words(even as a lawyer) cries out for justice!
From Rwanda, to Czech republic, to Hutu/Tustis to Sudan, to Kenya today, politicians who did not care to for innocent victims of the war, and who violated the Geneva convention are facing various charges of crimes against humanity, yet here we have our own criminal boasting about his reason for inflicting so much damage on humanity.

Too bad he is not alive to answer to ICC today, and even worse that some people seem to have forgotten what the man did, in his own words!

@ TerraCotta

You said a whole lot without actually saying anything.

I have two questions for you. Why was Nigeria willing to clear "food" shipments meant for Biafra but nevertheless stopped sending food to Biafra?
Was there a way to ensure such shipment, even when certified to be food but not arms, did not fall into wrong hands?


@ndu_chucks, what's wrong with Awo's statement ?

Prof Corruption: @ TerraCotta

You said a whole lot without actually saying anything.

I have two questions for you. Why was Nigeria willing to clear "food" shipments meant for Biafra but nevertheless stopped sending food to Biafra?
Was there a way to ensure such shipment, even when certified to be food but not arms, did not fall into wrong hands?


@ndu_chucks, what's wrong with Awo's statement ?

Are you a learner? Awolowo's text in red, is clearly an admission that the man's actions directly led to the deaths of women and children. I applaud awolowo for making the frank statement, but I question the motives of you people who are hell bent on sticking ya heads in the sand in denial.

ndu_chucks:

Are you a learner? Awolowo's text in red, is clearly an admission that the man's actions directly led to the deaths of women and children. I applaud awolowo for making the frank statement, but I question the motives of you people who are hell bent on sticking ya heads in the sand in denial.

How can I deny a statement not credited to me? So keep the motives stuff to yourself.
Awolowo was not more responsible for the welfare of Biafrans than Ojukwu. Awolowo couldn't have claimed to love Biafrans more than Ojukwu. Did Ojukwu have an opportunity to import food but turn it down?

If Awolowo stopped food shipment, so what? It does not make sense to feed your enemy in the midst of raging war. When Nigeria stopped food shipment, there were many donors willing to send food but Ojukwu declined those offers apparently because he placed more premium on winning the war than caring for dying Biafrans. That's where culpability rests firmly on Ojukwu shoulders.

Anyway, if you can prove or show why Nigeria was obligated to send food to Biafrans during the war, then we may begin to examine Awo's culpability.

Prof Corruption:

How can I deny a statement not credited to me? So keep the motives stuff to yourself.
Awolowo was not more responsible for the welfare of Biafrans than Ojukwu. Awolowo couldn't have claimed to love Biafrans more than Ojukwu. Did Ojukwu have an opportunity to import food but turn it down?

If Awolowo stopped food shipment, so what? It does not make sense to feed your enemy in the midst of raging war. When Nigeria stopped food shipment, there were many donors willing to send food but Ojukwu declined those offers apparently because he placed more premium on winning the war than caring for dying Biafrans. That's where culpability rests firmly on Ojukwu shoulders.

Anyway, if you can prove or show why Nigeria was obligated to send food to Biafrans during the war, then we may begin to examine Awo's culpability.

Since you've adopted Katsumoto's failed debate tactics, you, like him, you fail again. The issue is about Awo's statement which acknowledges that Awolowo's actions directly caused the deaths of these women and children. No one is arguing with you about Ojukwu's or anyone else's culpability in the deaths of these defenseless people.

ndu_chucks:


Since you've adopted Katsumoto's failed debate tactics, you, like him, fail again. The issue is about Awo's statement which acknowledges that Awolowo's actions directly caused the deaths of these women and children. No one is arguing with you about Ojukwu's or anyone else's culpability in the deaths of these defenseless people.

That's enough for me.
You can't declare war and at the same time bank on your enemy's support (food) to wage same war.
So all this talk of Awolowo did that or failed to have done that is nothing short of chasing shadows or resort to pure emotionalism when the real culprit was Ojukwu.

Prof Corruption:

That's enough for me.
You can't declare war and at the same time bank on your enemy's support (food) to wage same war.
So all this talk of Awolowo did that or failed to have done that is nothing short of chasing shadows or resort to pure emotionalism when the real culprit was Ojukwu.

Unlike you, I acknowledge that both sides contributed to the starvation of innocent women and children. The degree of responsibility is what may be in question. For you to come here to argue that Awolowo's policy on behalf of the Feds, was not a major factor, if not the primary factor, in the said starvation, is preposterous and intellectually dishonest.

Prof Corruption: @ TerraCotta

You said a whole lot without actually saying anything.

You're welcome to your opinion.

I have two questions for you. Why was Nigeria willing to clear "food" shipments meant for Biafra but nevertheless stopped sending food to Biafra?

I recognize that the post was long but I don't think it was complicated. This should be a fairly straightforward point to comprehend: Nigeria was directly sending food aid to Biafra while the war was going on. As I showed in the post, there was a history of protein deficiency in the area and the region was already dependent on imports from the north for meat and Scandinavia for dried fish.

For humanitarian reasons (intensified by world opinion on the photos and footage showing starving Biafran children), the Nigerian government offered to let international relief agencies fly food and medical supplies into Biafra. There were two conditions: that the flights would be during the day, and that Nigerian and neutral observers would be allowed to inspect them so they were not smuggling arms. This was after the earlier proposal of land corridors for food was rejected by Biafra. The air option was also rejected by Biafra, since Ojukwu needed that channel to continue flying in arms. Instead, Ojukwu claimed that the supplies might be poisoned which is why I included the long paragraph on widespread rumors of poisoned food in Biafra from Dr. Nkpa's article. I can direct you to independent sources--neither Nigerian nor Biafran--that reported these proposals.

Was there a way to ensure such shipment, even when certified to be food but not arms, did not fall into wrong hands?

No, which was Awolowo's point. The threat of malnourishment/starvation and public pressure from the images of starving Biafrans pushed Nigeria to to offer humanitarian compromises of relief agencies handling food deliveries, as long as they were inspected and sent in during the day. This was in June 1969, after several other relief plans had failed. Presumably, the Biafran army wouldn't hijack civilian resources sent by charities, and if they did, it would certainly turn public opinion.

It is a fact that Ojukwu rejected both the land corridor relief idea and daytime air relief as unacceptable. It's also a fact that he claimed Nigerian relief supplies might be poisoned. Nighttime relief flights continued through the war, intermingled with smuggled arms from France and Portugal, but they were insufficient for the population.

ndu_chucks:

Unlike you, I acknowledge that both sides contributed to the starvation of innocent women and children. The degree of responsibility is what may be in question. For you to come here to argue that Awolowo's policy on behalf of the Feds, was not a major factor, if not the primary factor, in the said starvation, is preposterous and intellectually dishonest.

No side can be entirely blameless in any war. It's just not possible. I am not here pontificating that all policies executed during or even after the war were flawless.

But my argument is simple and I will elaborate more here. Nigeria sent food shipments to Biafra because she could afford to do so. It wasn't mandatory as there was and still no law that stipulates that one must feed one's enemy during any war-be it civil or otherwise. For instance, if the nation was bankrupt and was borrowing to procure weapons, the last thing to discuss would be food for Biafrans. In other words, it was meant for Biafrans to feed themselves.

No, the major factor for that starvation was Biafra's unpreparedness for the war. Every other stuff is secondary. Infact, logic would have shown that you can't bank on your enemy's food to defeat him.

TerraCotta:

You're welcome to your opinion.



I recognize that the post was long but I don't think it was complicated. This should be a fairly straightforward point to comprehend: Nigeria was directly sending food aid to Biafra while the war was going on. As I showed in the post, there was a history of protein deficiency in the area and the region was already dependent on imports from the north for meat and Scandinavia for dried fish.

For humanitarian reasons (intensified by world opinion on the photos and footage showing starving Biafran children), the Nigerian government offered to let international relief agencies fly food and medical supplies into Biafra. There were two conditions: that the flights would be during the day, and that Nigerian and neutral observers would be allowed to inspect them so they were not smuggling arms. This was after the earlier proposal of land corridors for food was rejected by Biafra. The air option was also rejected by Biafra, since Ojukwu needed that channel to continue flying in arms. Instead, Ojukwu claimed that the supplies might be poisoned which is why I included the long paragraph on widespread rumors of poisoned food in Biafra from Dr. Nkpa's article. I can direct you to independent sources--neither Nigerian nor Biafran--that reported these proposals.



No, which was Awolowo's point. The threat of malnourishment/starvation and public pressure from the images of starving Biafrans pushed Nigeria to to offer humanitarian compromises of relief agencies handling food deliveries, as long as they were inspected and sent in during the day. This was in June 1969, after several other relief plans had failed. Presumably, the Biafran army wouldn't hijack civilian resources sent by charities, and if they did, it would certainly turn public opinion.

It is a fact that Ojukwu rejected both the land corridor relief idea and daytime air relief as unacceptable. It's also a fact that he claimed Nigerian relief supplies might be poisoned. Nighttime relief flights continued through the war, intermingled with smuggled arms from France and Portugal, but they were insufficient for the population.

I didn't write to be offensive in any way, sorry if that was implied in my post. I understood your points but my contention was that Awolowo did not even have to give any justification on than this: we do not intend to feed Biafra soldiers. Period.

ndu_chucks:


Since you've adopted Katsumoto's failed debate tactics, you, like him, you fail again. The issue is about Awo's statement which acknowledges that Awolowo's actions directly caused the deaths of these women and children. No one is arguing with you about Ojukwu's or anyone else's culpability in the deaths of these defenseless people.

You took a beating on your thread and you decided to continue here.

You are a funny character. Awolowo cannot be responsible for the deaths of Biafrans simply because Awolowo was not responsible for feeding them. If your father could not afford to feed you, do you blame your neighbor who was feeding but stopped because your father was giving the free food to his prostitutes? In the same vein what about the lives saved by the good gesture of sending food to Biafra, even if it was a small number? Can you provide 5 conflicts in which one side was providing food to the other combatant side?

The guilty for starvation lies with Ojukwu and the other members of the Biafran High Command.

Lastly, don't make reference to my debate tactics because I will beat you 100 times out of a hundred. You know why? Because you made the unbelievable error of making an assertion and that requested that I not be lazy and find literature that supports that assertion. By so doing, you implicitly admit that you aren't capable of doing the required research, necessary for a debate.

Prof Corruption:

I didn't write to be offensive in any way, sorry if that was implied in my post. I understood your points but my contention was that Awolowo did not even have to give any justification on than this: we do not intend to feed Biafra soldiers. Period.

Fair enough.

oyb:

i smell bromance

from his profile terracotta is a blast from nl's past - a time when it was a small community run by intellectuals

I almost missed this. A bonafide serial polygamist like TerraCotta?! Walahi, if my wives come swear for you now...

You're right though. This place used to be a lot different and a little more civil. Maybe I'm just too old for some of this type of stuff (although I'm sure there are several posters wey senior me well-well in these threads).

oyb:


i smell bromance

from his profile terracotta is a blast from nl's past - a time when it was a small community run by intellectuals

Ah...those were the good, old days!

[size=38pt]Awolowo developed yorubaland or Western Nigeria excluding Lagos, Lagos is a NML= No Man's Land developed by the entire people of Nigeria.
Nigerians own Lagos, nobody will claim developing Lagos but the FG is responsible to Nigerians.

We Nigerians developed and are developing Lagos[/size]

Ayekotoo:

Yorubas agitate through pen, paper and protest not via violence.

Brain is more potent than brawn most of the time!