.

afam4eva:
Not everyone look at issues from a tribal prism like some of you do. When ZIK replaced Eyo Ita with himself, he did that out of his own personal ambition and not because she was Efik/Ibibio and he wanted an Igbo in the position. If it was an Igbo occupying that position he would have done same and probably succeeded. Infact, the east should be applauded fro allowing a minority to mount that kind of position in a Majorly Igbo region. How many regions in Nigeria ever had a non-Major premier?

Like i said, if the eastern minority have any evidence of what was meted out to them by Biafran forced then they should provide a proof because i see this as an attempt by the Nigerian state to share whatever they're blamed with with Biafra.

. Dude, for once shut the he'll up and stop disgracing the Igbo race with your penchant for spewing nonsense that makes no sense. So, in this war that occurred Biafran soldiers did not kill a single person; because that is what I usually get from yall apologists and history revisionists.

Why don't you just concentrate on the "present- day" propaganda which the politicians funding you paid you to do on behalf of their thieving governments and leave the discussion of history and past events to those who wish to do so with an open mind?

@PhysicsQED

I hear from eyewitness that Murtala Muhamed was very much involved in the massacre in the then midwestern region.
I hear he invited the young men, all dressed in cremonial robes, and jubilant in welcoming them
....they were massacred in cold blood

esere826: @PhysicsQED

I hear from eyewitness that Murtala Muhamed was very much involved in the massacre in the then midwestern region.
I hear he invited the young men, all dressed in cremonial robes, and jubilant in welcoming them
....they were massacred in cold blood

You "hear" from "Eye Witness".... I'm betting that how we write is usually how we speak, so, these eye witnesses couldn't be kind enough to tell you that you sound
Ills a bonafide illiterate and that you should seek the four walls of a school ASAP?

esere826: @PhysicsQED

I hear from eyewitness that Murtala Muhamed was very much involved in the massacre in the then midwestern region.
I hear he invited the young men, all dressed in cremonial robes, and jubilant in welcoming them
....they were massacred in cold blood

Were they jubilating when their fathers, uncles, brothers switched sides and uniforms on the 8th of August 1967 as Biafran forces swept through Igbo areas in the mid-west?

The massacre at Asaba was deplorable but don't try and create an illusion.

kingoflag: You "hear" from "Eye Witness".... I'm betting that how we write is usually how we speak, so, these eye witnesses couldn't be kind enough to tell you that you sound
Ills a bonafide illiterate and that you should seek the four walls of a school ASAP?

Thank you for pointing just a finger at me o great n' mighty wordsmith
The other fingers are recoiled and perfectly aimed

Katsumoto:

Were they jubilating when their fathers, uncles, brothers switched sides and uniforms on the 8th of August 1967 as Biafran forces swept through Igbo areas in the mid-west?

The massacre at Asaba was deplorable but don't try and create an illusion.

Thats what I heard
I do not know the full story. I wasn't born then either,
but some elderly folks narrate this particular story with so much bitternes it makes me cringe

PhysicsQED:

After the federal recapture of the Midwest, killings occurred in more places than just at Asaba. Are you actually claiming that unless those that massacred Mid-west Igbos in places other than Asaba are identified by the name of the unit and its highest ranking officer, that the killings didn't actually happen? This is just terrible reasoning any way you look at it.

I don't know how people can think every soldier in every war who commits an atrocity can be identified by civilians. That's a completely ridiculous claim and point of view. Anyway, the vast majority of people, whether Igbo or non-Igbo, are not callous enough to dismiss and just reject the testimony of people from some Delta Igbo areas who come forward today with their accounts of what happened back then without such information, so the lack of identification of commanding officers and units never seems to matter. But in the case of non-Igbo Midwesterners, certain people on the internet and in real life seem unable to come to grips with reality and start imagining that they can just dismiss what happened by dismissing the source or claiming that those who were attacked or killed should have kept a directory or index of the names and units of the Biafran soldiers around them.

By the way, on the Midwest, it is naive to assume that Nigerian Midwesterners were the only ones who witnessed the Biafran atrocities that occurred. In the case of the Biafran atrocities in the Midwest, we have at least one confirmation from a foreigner of one of the atrocities (there were others still besides the one that this foreigner mentions), yet people still want to delude themselves about what really happened. Anyway, when brainwashed people are confronted with the truth, it will probably just be dismissed as being part of some anti-Biafran conspiracy no matter where it's coming from.

The above post is a brazen attempt by denial artist to sit truthful historical fact on its head. We are discussing the massacre perpetrated by frustrated units of soldiers who had incurred losses in term of human and materials in their failed bid to accomplish a task and turn their frustration and weapons on civilian whom they blamed for their cowardice and inadequacies. The Asaba, Ogba\Egbema and Obosi stood as glaring examples of such display of cowardice and inadequacies by armed units of Nigerian armed forces.

The incidences that took place in Sapele, Warri, Benin City and Agbo were born out of ethnic hatred and blind rage carried out by Non-Igbo peeps to placate their northern masters of Hausa, Fulani, Kanuri, Tiv, Nupe, etc. In Warri and Sapele, it must be recall that members of 8th battalion stood watch and encouraged the non-Igbo in those cities to lynch the defenseless Igbo. The history repeated itself at Benin City and Agbo as elements from 4th Brigade of 2nd Division under Captain Yara Adua encourage non-Igbo to lynch Igbo peeps.

The massacre in Asaba was carried out by the units from the 8th brigade of 2nd division of Nigerian armed forces under the command of Lt Col Francis Ayisida. The Ogba\Egbema massacre was perpetrated by units from 15th Brigade of 3MCDO of Nigerian armed forces under the command of Major Olu Makanjuola. The killing of 300 church worshippers at Obosi was carried by units from 4th and 6th brigades of 2nd division under the command of Lt Col Murtala Mohammed. This incident happened when 11th division of Biafaran army was in hot pursuit of Murtala Mohammed and his men after the Abagana debacle.

It is unconscionable for any individual to even insinuate putting up a defense for what happened in Sapele, Warrri, Benin City and Agbo during the dark hours of Nigerian history. It is fine with me but I must attest that Ndigbo shall never forget.

Dede1, I was talking about all military atrocities committed in the Midwest during the war. That you've decided to limit the atrocities under discussion to only those that took place under certain circumstances is your own choice. Not everyone has to accept that choice. And just to make sure I'm reading this right, are you admitting that "materials" were also a significant motivation for atrocities committed? If we agree on this, then maybe you'll understand that the murders committed in the course of looting are also considered atrocities and you'll stop this nonsense you've been promoting about no Biafran atrocities happening in the Midwest.

Also, are you sure you're comprehending what I said? You seem to think, simply because people are able to identify the units and commanders for some of the places where atrocities occurred, that every atrocity committed can just have a commander's name and unit attached to it easily as if the soldiers were all walking around with huge signs on their foreheads which indicated their name, unit and their unit's leader for civilian populations to use to identify them. Over a year ago, when, in the course of an argument, I was being informed about what federal troops did in Igbodo and other towns, I wasn't told the exact names of the units or those in command of those units and it didn't even seem relevant. Are you actually claiming that someone would need to supply those names and units before their account of what happened would be accepted?

As for the rest of your comment, it doesn't seem to directly address what I posted nor do I see how commenting on misleading claims or bizarre reasoning about the Biafran atrocities amounts to defending the federal troops' atrocities or other atrocities. Are you going to address the points I raised or not? If you are actually claiming that the only atrocities that happened during the war are those for which a commander and unit can be named, then come out and say so and stop beating around the bush. If that is really what you're claiming then there's not really a point in trying to discuss things any further.

esere826:

Thank you for pointing just a finger at me o great n' mighty wordsmith
The other fingers are recoiled and perfectly aimed

ode, "lls" obviously a typo from auto correct which substituted it for "like". Same can't be said for ur atomic bombs, Mr."I-hear-am- from-eye-witness".

esere826:

Thats what I heard
I do not know the full story. I wasn't born then either,
but some elderly folks narrate this particular story with so much bitternes it makes me cringe

So, why don't you pick up a book or ten and help yourself to some knowledge so you can make an informed decision instead of coming here telling us what your short-sighted eyewitnesses think they might have seen.

kingoflag: So, why don't you pick up a book or ten and help yourself to some knowledge so you can make an informed decision instead of coming here telling us what your short-sighted eyewitnesses think they might have seen.

'decision'?
did you mean 'comment'?


lol
little one
when you're through with combing through threads
and helping Seun correct english, igbo, yoruba and hausa grammer
give yourself a pat on the back
and go to bed

there is more work of such work to be done tomorrow

PhysicsQED: Dede1, I was talking about all military atrocities committed in the Midwest during the war. That you've decided to limit the atrocities under discussion to only those that took place under certain circumstances is your own choice. Not everyone has to accept that choice. And just to make sure I'm reading this right, are you admitting that "materials" were also a significant motivation for atrocities committed? If we agree on this, then maybe you'll understand that the murders committed in the course of looting are also considered atrocities and you'll stop this nonsense you've been promoting about no Biafran atrocities happening in the Midwest.

Also, are you sure you're comprehending what I said? You seem to think, simply because people are able to identify the units and commanders for some of the places where atrocities occurred, that every atrocity committed can just have a commander's name and unit attached to it easily as if the soldiers were all walking around with huge signs on their foreheads which indicated their name, unit and their unit's leader for civilian populations to use to identify them. Over a year ago, when, in the course of an argument, I was being informed about what federal troops did in Igbodo and other towns, I wasn't told the exact names of the units or those in command of those units and it didn't even seem relevant. Are you actually claiming that someone would need to supply those names and units before their account of what happened would be accepted?

As for the rest of your comment, it doesn't seem to directly address what I posted nor do I see how commenting on misleading claims or bizarre reasoning about the Biafran atrocities amounts to defending the federal troops' atrocities or other atrocities. Are you going to address the points I raised or not? If you are actually claiming that the only atrocities that happened during the war are those for which a commander and unit can be named, then come out and say so and stop beating around the bush. If that is really what you're claiming then there's not really a point in trying to discuss things any further.

Anybody whose statement can not stand the test of scrutiny should shut up. It is a display of idiocy to accuse Biafra army of atrocity when the accuser can not even proffer an iota of evidence to support such nonsensical conjecture. It is not just for fun that military is divided into units with distinguishable insignia to match. In addition, war zones are also divided into sectors for a very good reason.

I guess you are the only individual on earth who does not know that soldiers wear insignia of their unit and even trucks and other military equipments are marked accordingly. This is the reason the so-called eye witness account does not need to include the name of the soldiers. If the massacre took place in the night, it is foolhardy for any person to conclude Biafran soldiers were responsible.

Let those that massacred women and children gloat but Igbos will never forget and no group/groups can take any civil actions to address Nigeria challenges because of the fear that they will never forget.In other words,the country will remain in its current situation and that wicked actions will continue to hold Nigeria hostage until every body suffocates in the forced union.

However, it seems that the only thing some people discusses with joy is the pogrom and genocide but i can not blame them because where positive developments seems unattainable for years,wickedness arouses celebration.

esere826:

'decision'?
did you mean 'comment'?

SMH no wonder average IQ in Naija is believed to be around 69 or thereabouts.

Dede1: Anybody whose statement can not stand the test of scrutiny should shut up.

The point I am making is that contrary to what you might assume, not everyone who has mentioned atrocities committed by the federal troops or by the Biafrans has adopted this particular criterion of yours - specifying the name of the unit and commander - as something necessary to establish that murders were committed against civilians.

Furthermore, what is the "test of scrutiny"? What is the test, who is administering it, and what is required to establish beyond a doubt that something happened? I don't even see how merely naming a commander of a unit and a unit's name proves that something happened or that this commander or unit actually did something - the testimony of those affected by their actions seems to be what is really important - yet you use this as some kind of guideline to establish that certain atrocities were real, while other atrocities (including those by federal troops) are just mere claims from people and the people mentioning them should simply "shut up." An eyewitness account which describes people being pointed out to federal troops for executions or which describes Biafran atrocities without specifying the unit or the commander's name is of far more value as far as corroborating a story than someone just mentioning the name of a town or city, the unit that was in that city, and the commander's name.

It is a display of idiocy to accuse Biafra army of atrocity when the accuser can not even proffer an iota of evidence to support such nonsensical conjecture.

So basically if a man was the manager of a plantation, and Biafran soldiers killed him during the occupation while looting and suddenly after the invasion his child is fatherless, the son should, 40 years later, exhume the body from its grave (assuming they even found the body and buried it 40 years ago), subject it to a full autopsy (basically, mutilate the body) to try to recover bullet fragments, take these bullet fragments to some weapons expert to try and have them identified, and after somehow establishing that the bullets would have been in use circa 1967 by Biafran soldiers, try and track down Biafran soldiers (if they are still alive) of the exact unit that was in that area to see if they would admit to it?

Is that totally impossible scenario your idea of obtaining "evidence"? Or what is your idea of "evidence"? Is saying "This Biafran unit was in this or that area during this particular time that this atrocity happened and the name of the commander of the unit is such and such, therefore atrocities were committed by that unit. . ." what you consider "evidence"?

It is not just for fun that military is divided into units with distinguishable insignia to match. In addition, war zones are also divided into sectors for a very good reason.

No, not every unit would be uniquely distinguishable to civilians. The uniforms of the soldiers in that war on both sides from available pictures did not at all look as if they all had unique insignia on each uniform indicating their unit because even with close up, full pictures of some of these soldiers (Biafran and Nigerian), I certainly can't see any unique insignia on the uniforms of most ordinary soldiers that would easily distinguish one group from another.

Also, in case you somehow haven't grasped this, only the Biafrans were acutely aware of exactly where each specific unit of their army was in the Midwest during the occupation - they did not publish a list for distribution to the civilian population informing them of what area each unit would be in, the name of the commander of that unit and on what days they would be where because that would be an absurd thing to do.

I guess you are the only individual on earth who does not know that soldiers wear insignia of their unit and even trucks and other military equipments are marked accordingly. This is the reason the so-called eye witness account does not need to include the name of the soldiers.

This is easily one of the most ridiculous things I've read on this forum, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and analyze it as though it were an even remotely reasonable claim worth discussing in detail.

This image below is of Biafran officer's rank insignia:



(The image is from Philip Effiong Jr.'s website where he identifies them as such, so if you have any issue with what they are said to be, then take it up with him.)

a) Are you claiming that every soldier was wearing an insigne such as the ones above (or a simpler one, not made out of metal, but out of cloth, like the one Rolf Steiner wore) on their uniform?

b) Are you actually trying to tell me that a non-Biafran civilian would have had any idea what the insignia of certain soldiers meant as far as names of individual units? I doubt they would even have understood what any insignia meant as far as rank, not to talk of insignia for specific units.

c) Do you actually think that insignia indicate the exact unit involved to someone who is a civilian and has not been told beforehand what the insignia are meant to indicate?

d) Assuming that each unit of soldiers was distinguishable by some very unique insignia, and not looking like many of the soldiers in those civil war pictures where no unique insignia are clearly visible on the majority of them, who is supposed to know what the insignia of a particular unit are or what name they correspond to, and assuming such information was actually visible, what civilian would even have time to note such information while fearing or fleeing for their life?

Is an ordinary laborer, mechanic, farmer, etc. supposed to know what one insigne corresponds to in terms of the name of the unit? In your view, was every person suddenly some kind of intelligence operative just because their land had been invaded?

e) Since you claim a non-Biafran civilian with no familiarity with Biafran army organization and insignia should have been able to identify the unit that Biafran soldiers belonged to, then as an expert, with much more time available to you, and many more resources and connections at your disposal, identify the unit that these Biafran soldiers were in, post-haste:



And each of these men?:





[img]http://beegeagle.files./2010/07/v6k9ol.jpg[/img]




Your claim is that if you were an ordinary civilian and any of these men in the photographs above were around you, you would be able to tell the exact unit that they're from because of some supposedly visible unique unit insignia. Since that's what you're saying then prove it. Say what units these men are from and give some support or proof that they are from the units you say they are from. This is a very simple request. If you can't point out the unit-identifying insignia that you claim every soldier wore and identify the units that each and every one of these Biafran soldiers are in, then I don't think you have a point.

If the massacre took place in the night, it is foolhardy for any person to conclude Biafran soldiers were responsible.

Who said the killings all took place in the night? What are you talking about? Stop looking for excuses. It's amazing that you could think of calling me a "denial artist" when you can pull this scenario out of your hat in search of an avenue through which to construct a denial.

D a m n!!!

Physics,

I read your last post and the arguments . I need you to do me favor....would it take anything away fron you to change your name from PhysicsQED to "ProsecutorQED"? . .

Physics go take question kill persin for hia

^ That's funny. And thanks, but I think I'll stick with physics. I can sometimes put forward a good argument, but I don't think I would actually like to be a prosecutor.

LMAO!

Serious demolition!

^^^
I can't fit to tok again
I am really getting deeper into this ghost of Nigerian past

Nowa Omoigui's opinion holds no water. The Rebel Atrocities Commission of Enquiry set up to investigate the "biafran atrocities" came up with NOTHING. Foreign and Nigerian news media never carried the stories of the atrocities even after those places had been captured by the Federal forces.

I'm now supposed to believe nowa omoigui, a doctor cum historian and web apparition extraordinaire because the war happened a long time ago?

sleekdot: Nowa Omogui opinion on the midwest invasion is there in the open but we have been told that Nowa is also lying

PhysicsQED:

The point I am making is that contrary to what you might assume, not everyone who has mentioned atrocities committed by the federal troops or by the Biafrans has adopted this particular criterion of yours - specifying the name of the unit and commander - as something necessary to establish that murders were committed against civilians.

Furthermore, what is the "test of scrutiny"? What is the test, who is administering it, and what is required to establish beyond a doubt that something happened? I don't even see how merely naming a commander of a unit and a unit's name proves that something happened or that this commander or unit actually did something - the testimony of those affected by their actions seems to be what is really important - yet you use this as some kind of guideline to establish that certain atrocities were real, while other atrocities (including those by federal troops) are just mere claims from people and the people mentioning them should simply "shut up." An eyewitness account which describes people being pointed out to federal troops for executions or which describes Biafran atrocities without specifying the unit or the commander's name is of far more value as far as corroborating a story than someone just mentioning the name of a town or city, the unit that was in that city, and the commander's name.




So basically if a man was the manager of a plantation, and Biafran soldiers killed him during the occupation while looting and suddenly after the invasion his child is fatherless, the son should, 40 years later, exhume the body from its grave (assuming they even found the body and buried it 40 years ago), subject it to a full autopsy (basically, mutilate the body) to try to recover bullet fragments, take these bullet fragments to some weapons expert to try and have them identified, and after somehow establishing that the bullets would have been in use circa 1967 by Biafran soldiers, try and track down Biafran soldiers (if they are still alive) of the exact unit that was in that area to see if they would admit to it?

Is that totally impossible scenario your idea of obtaining "evidence"? Or what is your idea of "evidence"? Is saying "This Biafran unit was in this or that area during this particular time that this atrocity happened and the name of the commander of the unit is such and such, therefore atrocities were committed by that unit. . ." what you consider "evidence"?




No, not every unit would be uniquely distinguishable to civilians. The uniforms of the soldiers in that war on both sides from available pictures did not at all look as if they all had unique insignia on each uniform indicating their unit because even with close up, full pictures of some of these soldiers (Biafran and Nigerian), I certainly can't see any unique insignia on the uniforms of most ordinary soldiers that would easily distinguish one group from another.

Also, in case you somehow haven't grasped this, only the Biafrans were acutely aware of exactly where each specific unit of their army was in the Midwest during the occupation - they did not publish a list for distribution to the civilian population informing them of what area each unit would be in, the name of the commander of that unit and on what days they would be where because that would be an absurd thing to do.



This is easily one of the most ridiculous things I've read on this forum, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and analyze it as though it were an even remotely reasonable claim worth discussing in detail.

This image below is of Biafran officer's rank insignia:



(The image is from Philip Effiong Jr.'s website where he identifies them as such, so if you have any issue with what they are said to be, then take it up with him.)

a) Are you claiming that every soldier was wearing an insigne such as the ones above (or a simpler one, not made out of metal, but out of cloth, like the one Rolf Steiner wore) on their uniform?

b) Are you actually trying to tell me that a non-Biafran civilian would have had any idea what the insignia of certain soldiers meant as far as names of individual units? I doubt they would even have understood what any insignia meant as far as rank, not to talk of insignia for specific units.

c) Do you actually think that insignia indicate the exact unit involved to someone who is a civilian and has not been told beforehand what the insignia are meant to indicate?

d) Assuming that each unit of soldiers was distinguishable by some very unique insignia, and not looking like many of the soldiers in those civil war pictures where no unique insignia are clearly visible on the majority of them, who is supposed to know what the insignia of a particular unit are or what name they correspond to, and assuming such information was actually visible, what civilian would even have time to note such information while fearing or fleeing for their life?

Is an ordinary laborer, mechanic, farmer, etc. supposed to know what one insigne corresponds to in terms of the name of the unit? In your view, was every person suddenly some kind of intelligence operative just because their land had been invaded?

e) Since you claim a non-Biafran civilian with no familiarity with Biafran army organization and insignia should have been able to identify the unit that Biafran soldiers belonged to, then as an expert, with much more time available to you, and many more resources and connections at your disposal, identify the unit that these Biafran soldiers were in, post-haste:



And each of these men?:





[img]http://beegeagle.files./2010/07/v6k9ol.jpg[/img]




Your claim is that if you were an ordinary civilian and any of these men in the photographs above were around you, you would be able to tell the exact unit that they're from because of some supposedly visible unique unit insignia. Since that's what you're saying then prove it. Say what units these men are from and give some support or proof that they are from the units you say they are from. This is a very simple request. If you can't point out the unit-identifying insignia that you claim every soldier wore and identify the units that each and every one of these Biafran soldiers are in, then I don't think you have a point.



Who said the killings all took place in the night? What are you talking about? Stop looking for excuses. It's amazing that you could think of calling me a "denial artist" when you can pull this scenario out of your hat in search of an avenue through which to construct a denial.

One of the reasons I navigate to this forum is to punch holes on bags of innuendos which have been planted on Nigerian society by the denial artists with regard to Nigeria\Biafra civil war. I would not have wasted my time glancing through the fictitious nonsense about Biafran soldiers massacring civilians in mdwestern region if the shameless postulators had alerted us they formed such opinion from doctored pictures instead of eye witness accounts.

It is rather unfortunate PhysicsQED could not grasp the idea why military units are divided into units and wore insignia of major military branch. From your post, I doubt you understood the difference between certain military insignia and appearance of rank. Even from the doctored photographs in the the above post anybody with eye problem can discern the soldiers wore arm badges of Biafra’s raising sun. Once the fact is established the soldiers were indeed Biafrans, it is easy to determine the unit operating in certain area of the war zone through intelligent gathering. It has been more than forty years the war ended yet the wishful thinkers mainly the denial artists have failed to come up with iota of plausible evidence to back up their idiotic accusation that Biafran soldiers massacred civilians in midwestern region.

I did not know that Nigerians who fought against Biafra were dumbazz eggheads who tend to wait for Biafra to publish the position of its fighting units in order for them to determine which unit committed an atrocity. I guess Nigerian army went to the airwave to inform the world that certain units of 3MCDO or 2nd Division or 1st Division will engage Biafran units on particular time and place. What a moronic conjecture. Biafra had intelligent units which shadowed every move of the vandals. It is safe to say that Biafra’s eye witness narrators were more intelligent than Nigerians who tend to sleep walk. Biafran civilians and authorities did not go to God in order to discern that elements from 3MCDO committed atrocity in Ogba\Egbama, or elements from 2nd Division of Nigerian army committed atrocity in Asaba and Obosi.

Again, if those of you who tend to fan innuendos and falsehood about the massacre of civilians in midwestern region by Biafran soldiers can not provide an iota of evidence, I suggest you shut the hell up. It is idiotic for anybody to wake up in the morning and attribute such heinous crime to Biafran soldiers without a tiny form of evidence.

Dede1: It is rather unfortunate PhysicsQED could not grasp the idea why military units are divided into units and wore insignia of major military branch.

A "unit" is a term indicating something like a division or a brigade or company or battalion in the military. That's the standard use of the term, correct? It's not my particular preference or something. The term is not usually indicative of a major military branch like the navy, air force, army, marines, etc., which always have distinguishing insignia.

By claiming that Biafran soldiers in the Midwest could and should have been visually identified down to the unit by civilians, what else were you claiming but that a specific section of the "Biafran Liberation Army" occupying the Midwest (like one of its brigades) could be identified by its insignia? Or did you think there was some confusion on my part about whether air force and army units had distinguishing insignia? That's not even relevant here because the force under question is the "Biafran Liberation Army" that was occupying the Midwest. Now if you were not claiming that specific units in the BLA could be identified by non-Biafran civilians, then what were you claiming and why did you repeatedly use the term "unit"?

Even from the doctored photographs in the the above post anybody with eye problem can discern the soldiers wore arm badges of Biafra’s raising sun.

Doctored photographs? Who do you think doctored them and why? Some of those war time photographs are directly from Phillip Effiong Jr.'s website. If those ones are considered "doctored" to you as well, then maybe you should take it up with him.

Anyway, there are many pictures of Biafran soldiers with the arm badges of Biafra's rising sun. There are pictures of Ojukwu wearing it, Effiong wearing it, etc. And Rolf Steiner's actual unit insignia (the skull and crossbones) was worn underneath the Biafran rising sun badge on his arm. How are those badges of Biafra's rising sun supposed to be unique to a "unit" so that that unit can be identified and distinguished from others when that sun badge was being worn by many different units, and furthermore, how is that rising sun badge possibly supposed to be useful to a civilian in identifying the specific unit?

Once the fact is established the soldiers were indeed Biafrans, it is easy to determine the unit operating in certain area of the war zone through intelligent gathering.

"Easy" for you (if you're actually some sort of military consultant or something, like some people here claimed) or for someone with any intelligence gathering expertise, maybe. But not for an ordinary civilian. This should not be hard to grasp, but somehow it eludes you.

It has been more than forty years the war ended yet the wishful thinkers mainly the denial artists have failed to come up with iota of plausible evidence to back up their idiotic accusation that Biafran soldiers massacred civilians in midwestern region.

This is why Nnamdi Azikiwe said in 1969 that atrocities had been committed by Biafran occupiers in the Midwest, right?

It was ironic coming across a statement in a book recently in which a certain writer said that he had found "no credible corroboration" of the claims of atrocities being committed by Biafran soldiers that were in the Midwest in the same book where praises were heaped upon Nnamdi Azikiwe, who had already spoke in 1969 on the Biafran occupation atrocities that were committed in the Midwest. I guess not even Zik would remain credible to that writer who praised him effusively if the writer were to come across Zik's statement.

But I think that maybe you want people to dig up and identify bodies and look for bullet fragments to match with Biafran ammunition or something else that's not practically possible, and even if that were somehow carried out I still doubt that you would accept the truth. Because neither you nor others that talk about this issue seem to be willing to say what would constitute "credible corroboration" or "evidence."

I did not know that Nigerians who fought against Biafra were dumbazz eggheads who tend to wait for Biafra to publish the position of its fighting units in order for them to determine which unit committed an atrocity.

Who is even talking about "Nigerians that fought against Biafra"? I am talking about ordinary civilians. Why are you under the impression that ordinary civilians are capable of identifying a unit merely by glancing at soldiers' insignia that they don't understand? Also nice job, as an evasion artist, of evading the question asked of you to identify those Biafran soldiers by simply claiming the pictures were all "doctored".

I guess Nigerian army went to the airwave to inform the world that certain units of 3MCDO or 2nd Division or 1st Division will engage Biafran units on particular time and place. What a moronic conjecture. Biafra had intelligent units which shadowed every move of the vandals. It is safe to say that Biafra’s eye witness narrators were more intelligent than Nigerians who tend to sleep walk. Biafran civilians and authorities did not go to God in order discern that elements from 3MCDO committed atrocity in Ogba\Egbama, or elements from 2nd Division of Nigerian army committed atrocity in Asaba and Obosi.

If you were not being deliberately disingenuous, you would admit that an ordinary civilian would not be engaging in some kind intelligence gathering operation (for who?), but instead would be trying not to get killed or accused of being a spy/infiltrator for no reason.

And I've said it before, whether you'll like to admit it or not, not every commander and unit for every place where atrocities were committed by Biafra or Nigeria has been identified, nor is that what matters most because merely identifying the commander and unit that were in a certain area does not establish that something happened but rather the testimony of the people affected does.

nku5: Nowa Omoigui's opinion holds no water. The Rebel Atrocities Commission of Enquiry set up to investigate the "biafran atrocities" came up with NOTHING. Foreign and Nigerian news media never carried the stories of the atrocities even after those places had been captured by the Federal forces.

I'm now supposed to believe nowa omoigui, a doctor cum historian and web apparition extraordinaire because the war happened a long time ago?

Nowa omoiguis account holds no water but Achebes opinion does.

Anyone who supports Biafras opinion does hold water.

Physics abeg take it easy on Dende. He is a recognized morr0n

Dede1:


One of the reasons I navigate to this forum is to punch holes on bags of innuendos which have been planted on Nigerian society by the denial artists with regard to Nigeria\Biafra civil war. I would not have wasted my time glancing through the fictitious nonsense about Biafran soldiers massacring civilians in mdwestern region if the shameless postulators had alerted us they formed such opinion from doctored pictures instead of eye witness accounts.

It is rather unfortunate PhysicsQED could not grasp the idea why military units are divided into units and wore insignia of major military branch. From your post, I doubt you understood the difference between certain military insignia and appearance of rank. Even from the doctored photographs in the the above post anybody with eye problem can discern the soldiers wore arm badges of Biafra’s raising sun. Once the fact is established the soldiers were indeed Biafrans, it is easy to determine the unit operating in certain area of the war zone through intelligent gathering. It has been more than forty years the war ended yet the wishful thinkers mainly the denial artists have failed to come up with iota of plausible evidence to back up their idiotic accusation that Biafran soldiers massacred civilians in midwestern region.

I did not know that Nigerians who fought against Biafra were dumbazz eggheads who tend to wait for Biafra to publish the position of its fighting units in order for them to determine which unit committed an atrocity. I guess Nigerian army went to the airwave to inform the world that certain units of 3MCDO or 2nd Division or 1st Division will engage Biafran units on particular time and place. What a moronic conjecture. Biafra had intelligent units which shadowed every move of the vandals. It is safe to say that Biafra’s eye witness narrators were more intelligent than Nigerians who tend to sleep walk. Biafran civilians and authorities did not go to God in order discern that elements from 3MCDO committed atrocity in Ogba\Egbama, or elements from 2nd Division of Nigerian army committed atrocity in Asaba and Obosi.

Again, if those of you who tend to fan innuendos and falsehood about the massacre of civilians in midwestern region by Biafran soldiers can not provide an iota of evidence, I suggest you shut the hell up. It is idiotic for anybody to wake up in the morning and attribute such heinous crime to Biafran soldiers without a tiny form of evidence.

By now, anyone that even wastes their time trying to have a logical argument with you---instead of insulting you like the mad man you really are--- is clearly not ok in the head either. Im not saying PhysicsQed might have a mental problem like yourself, all I'm saying is that like DayoKanu said your a "RECOGNIZED M.ORON" and mad man and his posts being devoid of any curses at you also calls his mental state into question. Anuofia!

Why must he be charged again when nature has already charged him making him crippled and senile

Why must he be charged again when nature has already charged him making him crippled and senile

Wow guys

people dey curse people when it comes to the Nigerian civil war issues sha
Cant folks simply be civil and have informed discussions while trying to unearth issues

So much emotions even from those who did not loose any familly members
Jeez!! are we so pro ethnic clusters?


*and kingoflag, u'd better face your front. Don't come here with a microscope as small as u, picking grammer and screaming obscenities ooo *

Achebe is just a misguided and desperate but frustrated opportunist who wants to win the Nobel Prize at all cost. He knows his time is almost over. So, he has just raised this issue to bring about a widespread controversy that will attract the attention of the West and the academy in charge of the Nobel Prize for his senseless, reckless and mundane pursuit.

PhysicsQED...has been able to destroyed the little remnant of sense in Dede moroon here.

See the Yeye bros running from pillar to post looking for a straw to cling to.

Photo doctored ko...photoshopped ni!

PhysicsQED:

A "unit" is a term indicating something like a division or a brigade or company or battalion in the military. That's the standard use of the term, correct? It's not my particular preference or something. The term is not usually indicative of a major military branch like the navy, air force, army, marines, etc., which always have distinguishing insignia.

By claiming that Biafran soldiers in the Midwest could and should have been visually identified down to the unit by civilians, what else were you claiming but that a specific section of the "Biafran Liberation Army" occupying the Midwest (like one of its brigades) could be identified by its insignia? Or did you think there was some confusion on my part about whether air force and army units had distinguishing insignia? That's not even relevant here because the force under question is the "Biafran Liberation Army" that was occupying the Midwest. Now if you were not claiming that specific units in the BLA could be identified by non-Biafran civilians, then what were you claiming and why did you repeatedly use the term "unit"?



Doctored photographs? Who do you think doctored them and why? Some of those war time photographs are directly from Phillip Effiong Jr.'s website. If those ones are considered "doctored" to you as well, then maybe you should take it up with him.

Anyway, there are many pictures of Biafran soldiers with the arm badges of Biafra's rising sun. There are pictures of Ojukwu wearing it, Effiong wearing it, etc. And Rolf Steiner's actual unit insignia (the skull and crossbones) was worn underneath the Biafran rising sun badge on his arm. How are those badges of Biafra's rising sun supposed to be unique to a "unit" so that that unit can be identified and distinguished from others when that sun badge was being worn by many different units, and furthermore, how is that rising sun badge possibly supposed to be useful to a civilian in identifying the specific unit?



"Easy" for you (if you're actually some sort of military consultant or something, like some people here claimed) or for someone with any intelligence gathering expertise, maybe. But not for an ordinary civilian. This should not be hard to grasp, but somehow it eludes you.



This is why Nnamdi Azikiwe admitted in 1969 that atrocities had been committed by Biafran occupiers in the Midwest, right?

It was ironic coming across a statement in a book recently in which a certain writer thought that there was "no credible corroboration" of the claims of atrocities being committed by Biafran soldiers that were in the Midwest in the same book where praises were heaped upon Nnamdi Azikiwe, who had already spoke in 1969 on the Biafran occupation atrocities that were committed in the Midwest. I guess not even Zik would remain credible to that writer who praised him effusively if the writer were to come across Zik's statement.

But I think that maybe you want people to dig up and identify bodies and look for bullet fragments to match with Biafran ammunition or something else that's not practically possible, and even if that were somehow carried out I still doubt that you would accept the truth. Because neither you nor others that talk about this issue seem to be willing to say what would constitute "credible corroboration" or "evidence."



Who is even talking about "Nigerians that fought against Biafra"? I am talking about ordinary civilians. Why are you under the impression that ordinary civilians are capable of identifying a unit merely by glancing at soldiers' insignia that they don't understand? Also nice job, as an evasion artist, of evading the question asked of you to identify those Biafran soldiers by simply claiming the pictures were all "doctored".



If you were not being deliberately disingenuous, you would admit that an ordinary civilian would not be engaging in some kind intelligence gathering operation (for who?), but instead would be trying not to get killed or accused of being a spy/infiltrator for no reason.

And I've said it before, whether you'll like to admit it or not, not every commander and unit for every place where war crimes were committed by Biafra or Nigeria has been identified, nor is that what matters most because merely identifying the commander and unit that were in a certain area does not establish that something happened but rather the testimony of the people affected does.

This is one of the nonsensical drivels I have come across on this forum. You and ilk made goofy allegation against Biafran soldiers and had been asked to provide a shred of evidence. Instead of backing your nonsensical accusations with proof, you seemed interested in spewing outdated and unfounded crap.

I do not give a ratazz if you dig up bullet fragments to match Biafran ammunitions, train civilians to be capable of discerning insignia worn by Biafran army units or turn cross section of Nigerians that fought Biafra into CIA or M16 or KGB, the proof of atrocity allegedly committed by Biafran soldiers in midwestern region of Nigeria rests on the shoulders of ninnies who bore such outlandish falsehood.

Biafrans accused certain units of Nigerian armed forces of atrocities and had proffered convincing evidences to back such claims. During Oputa’s tribunal, some of principal actors in the war shamefully admitted atrocities were committed when confronted with overwhelming evidences.