houvest:

[b]It is intellectual dishonesty presenting only one side of a story without balancing it out with the other. I followed that thread you mentioned and I will like you to present here his response to you when you challenged him on the point you are here raising. [/b]That will make for balance before you can now reiterate your point. Please. You are one of the folks I respect his intellectual and unbiased approach to things not that I agree with all . Please uphold that here.

Don't mind that piece of crap.

It is either a display of intellectual dishonesty or plain stupidity when few Nigerians write that Azikiwe chose to server under Tafawa Balewa. Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe did not serve under Tafawa Balewa. In fact, Azikiwe had more considerable constitutional authority than Tafawa Balewa.

The constitutional authority to request the dissolution of government rested with the President. Nobody could be Prime Minister without the constitutional consent of the President. On Nigeria’s Independence Day ceremony, it was the President who inspected the mounted armed forces honor guard not the Prime Minister. I still can not fathom where the Prime Minister had outright constitutional superiority over the President to awfully instigate the notion that Azikiwe serverd under Tafawa Balewa.

Dede1:

It is either a display of intellectual dishonesty or plain stupidity when few Nigerians write that Azikiwe chose to server under Tafawa Balewa. Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe did not serve under Tafawa Balewa. In fact, Azikiwe had more considerable constitutional authority than Tafawa Balewa.

The constitutional authority to request the dissolution of government rested with the President. Nobody could be Prime Minister without the constitutional consent of the President. On Nigeria’s Independence Day ceremony, it was the President who inspected the mounted armed forces honor guard not the Prime Minister. I still can not fathom where the Prime Minister had outright constitutional superiority over the President to awfully instigate the notion that Azikiwe serverd under Tafawa Balewa.

That is such a load of crap. I guess Queen Elizabeth has more powers than the Prime Minister since she has more state dinners and can dissolve parliament. No matter how you try to dress it, Balewa had the powers while Zik was a ceremonial president. I guess Zik also thought he had more powers than Balewa during the constitutional crisis of January 65 until he was told point blank by the service chiefs that they report to Balewa and not Zik.

Katsumoto:

This guy must be high on something!!!!

I guess I am responsible for instigating a group of Igbo officers to kill non-Igbo citizens. I must also be responsible for the political marriage between the Easterners and Northerners. Damn, I must also be responsible for ensuring that Zik assisted in the formation of Nigeria. Of course, I am responsible for Ojukwu taking a knife to a gun fight. Yes I am responsible.

There has never being a time in the history of Nigeria where Easterners and Northerners colluded in any form of political agreement either to fight or gain advantage over other regions. It is a borderline asinine to insinuate any form of political marriage between Northern and Eastern regions of Nigeria.

When NCNC and NPC formed the coalition government, it was not Northern and Eastern region show. I shall recall while the coalition government lasted, parties such as NEPU, Action Group and UMBC joined coalition as junior partners to NCNC. It was also the same arrangement that saw NNDP and NDC joined coalition as junior partners to NPC. Again, the last time I checked though, NCNC was not exclusive club of eastern region.

As a matter of fact, the only socio-politico-economic marriage that had been ever consummated happened between Northern, Western and Midwestern regions of Nigeria. It was the political marriage that created everlasting and undeniable enemy of Biafra.

Dede1:

There has never being a time in the history of Nigeria where Easterners and Northerners colluded in any form of political agreement either to fight or gain advantage over other regions. It is a borderline asinine to insinuate any form of political marriage between Northern and Eastern regions of Nigeria.

When NCNC and NPC formed the coalition government, it was not Northern and Eastern region show. I shall recall while the coalition government lasted, parties such as NEPU, Action Group and UMBC joined coalition as junior partners to NCNC. It was also the same arrangement that saw NNDP and NDC joined coalition as junior partners to NPC. Again, the last time I checked though, NCNC was not exclusive club of eastern region.

As a matter of fact, the only socio-politico-economic marriage that had been ever consummated happened between Northern, Western and Midwestern regions of Nigeria. It was the political marriage that created everlasting and undeniable enemy of Biafra.

Stop trying to be clever, the marriage between NPC and NCNC was a marriage between North and East. NPC was a northern party and while NCNC may have started has a mixed party under Macaulay, it became predominantly, an Igbo party under Zik. It is naive at best and disingenuous at worst to suggest otherwise. NPC controlled the Northern region, AG controlled the Western region, while the NCNC controlled the Eastern region. We all know the circumstances under which the NNDP joined the NPC and the numerical strength of NNDP.

Katsumoto:

That is such a load of crap. I guess Queen Elizabeth has more powers than the Prime Minister since she has more state dinners and can dissolve parliament. No matter how you try to dress it, Balewa had the powers while Zik was a ceremonial president. I guess Zik also thought he had more powers than Balewa during the constitutional crisis of January 65 until he was told point blank by the service chiefs that they report to Balewa and not Zik.

I know you are not a lazy scholar and urge of you to read 1963 constitution. It will be nice if you could decease from comparing ceremonial presidency with monarchy. Please put a definite stop to the conjectural nonsense about service chiefs telling Azikiwe that they only report to Prime Minister. The service chiefs were not meant to report to Prime Minister but to Minister of Defense. There was never a constitutional crisis as you would want us to believe. One of the authorities the constitution bestowed on Prime Minister was the deployment or movement of troops and other law enforcement agents during crisis. Even as it was, the president had other means to overcome such vested powers if he or she chose to do so.

the world court has agreed to recognise biafra as a soverign state come 2011 according to united nation constitution

Monarchy in England and ceremonial presidency - The only difference being that the Queen is not elected. Otherwise, they are only concerned with ceremonial matters and are not involved in the running of the country. Is the Queen not the Head of State of Australia, Canada, Jamaica, and other commonwealth countries? Does she have a say in how those countries are run? There was a constitutional crisis in January 65.

7. Constitutional crisis of January 1965:
Following the controversial Federal Election of December 1964, ceremonial President Azikiwe of the NCNC, urged by radical intelligentsia, refused to invite Prime Minister Balewa of the NPC to form a government and issued orders mobilizing the Army to enforce his authority to suspend the government, annul the elections and appoint a temporary interim administrator to conduct elections.  However, the oath of allegiance of the officer corps was not only to the Commander in Chief but also to the government of Nigeria.

The Army Act (#26 of 1960) and the Navy Act (#9 of 1960) were also clear on lines of authority and control.While the Army and Navy were "under the general authority" of the Defence Minister in matters of "command, discipline and administration", the authority for operational use and control was vested in the Council of Ministers and the Prime Minister.  President Azikiwe and the service chiefs were so advised by the Chief Justice and Attorney General of the Federation.

Thus the Navy Commander, Commodore Wey politely told the President that the Navy (under him), the Army (under Major General Welby-Everard) and the Police (under Louis Edet) had decided to refuse his orders.  After a week of cliff hanging tension, in which the military stood aside, a political compromise was eventually reached and a government of "national unity" formed under Prime Minister Balewa.

http://www.waado.org/nigerdelta/nigeria_facts/MilitaryRule/Omoigui/Prelude-1966Coup.html

The substantive President, Nnamdi Azikiwe, also of eastern origin, had left the country in late 1965 first for Europe, then on a health cruise to the caribbean, after allegedly being tipped off by his cousin, Major Ifeajuna, one of the masterminds of the coup and, some say, overall leader. Interestingly, (assuming reports that he had foreknowledge are true) Azikiwe did not notify his alliance partner, the Prime Minister, Alhaji Tafawa Balewa, with whom he had clashed over control of the armed forces during the Constitutional crisis of January 1965, following the controversial December 1964 federal elections.
http://www.gamji.com/nowa11.htm

the constitutional crisis of January 1965, following the controversial Federal Elections of December 1964, when ceremonial Head-of-State, chief Nnamdi Azikiwe of the NCNC, urged by radical intelligentsia, refused to invite Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa of the NPC to form a government; the suppression of the Tiv revolt, etc.
http://www.marxist.com/wole-soyinka-1.htm

I know you are likely to disagree with the above but I post for those who are not aware.

Katsumoto:

Monarchy in England and ceremonial presidency - The only difference being that the Queen is not elected. Otherwise, they are only concerned with ceremonial matters and are not involved in the running of the country. Is the Queen not the Head of State of Australia, Canada, Jamaica, and other commonwealth countries? Does she have a say in how those countries are run? There was a constitutional crisis in January 65.

7. Constitutional crisis of January 1965:
Following the controversial Federal Election of December 1964, ceremonial President Azikiwe of the NCNC, urged by radical intelligentsia, refused to invite Prime Minister Balewa of the NPC to form a government and issued orders mobilizing the Army to enforce his authority to suspend the government, annul the elections and appoint a temporary interim administrator to conduct elections.  However, the oath of allegiance of the officer corps was not only to the Commander in Chief but also to the government of Nigeria.

The Army Act (#26 of 1960) and the Navy Act (#9 of 1960) were also clear on lines of authority and control.While the Army and Navy were "under the general authority" of the Defence Minister in matters of "command, discipline and administration", the authority for operational use and control was vested in the Council of Ministers and the Prime Minister.  President Azikiwe and the service chiefs were so advised by the Chief Justice and Attorney General of the Federation.

Thus the Navy Commander, Commodore Wey politely told the President that the Navy (under him), the Army (under Major General Welby-Everard) and the Police (under Louis Edet) had decided to refuse his orders.   After a week of cliff hanging tension, in which the military stood aside, a political compromise was eventually reached and a government of "national unity" formed under Prime Minister Balewa.

http://www.waado.org/nigerdelta/nigeria_facts/MilitaryRule/Omoigui/Prelude-1966Coup.html

The substantive President, Nnamdi Azikiwe, also of eastern origin, had left the country in late 1965 first for Europe, then on a health cruise to the caribbean, after allegedly being tipped off by his cousin, Major Ifeajuna, one of the masterminds of the coup and, some say, overall leader. Interestingly, (assuming reports that he had foreknowledge are true) Azikiwe did not notify his alliance partner, the Prime Minister, Alhaji Tafawa Balewa, with whom he had clashed over control of the armed forces during the Constitutional crisis of January 1965, following the controversial December 1964 federal elections.
http://www.gamji.com/nowa11.htm

the constitutional crisis of January 1965, following the controversial Federal Elections of December 1964, when ceremonial Head-of-State, chief Nnamdi Azikiwe of the NCNC, urged by radical intelligentsia, refused to invite Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa of the NPC to form a government; the suppression of the Tiv revolt, etc.
http://www.marxist.com/wole-soyinka-1.htm

I know you are likely to disagree with the above but I post for those who are not aware.

Are you this gullible that you swallow every junk posted or written by individuals from southern Nigeria who tried very hard to curry favor from northern politicians? At least, you have agreed it is a waste of bandwidth comparing ceremonial presidency with monarchy.

What you posted in bold collaborated with my stand that service chiefs did not report to Prime Minister but Minister of Defense. The element of deployment of troops rests with Prime Minister. However, the President could have gone around it because the time in question, there was no constituted government and would have escalated the crisis to the national assembly.

It is unfortunate that you decided to shot yourself on the foot with inclusion of Minister of Justice and Attorney-General. Remember that government has been dissolved and the post of Attorney-General is vacant. Azikiwe might have been advised by the Chief Justice of the federation not the Attorney-General.

I suggest you read my previous post again. Please do this with unbiased mind.

Dede1:

Are you this gullible that you swallow every junk posted or written by individuals from southern Nigeria who tried very hard to curry favor from northern politicians? At least, you have agreed it is a waste of bandwidth comparing ceremonial presidency with monarchy.

What you posted in bold collaborated with my stand that service chiefs did not report to Prime Minister but Minister of Defense. The element of deployment of troops rests with Prime Minister. However, the President could have gone around it because the time in question, there was no constituted government and would have escalated the crisis to the national assembly.

It is unfortunate that you decided to shot yourself on the foot with inclusion of Minister of Justice and Attorney-General. Remember that government has been dissolved and the post of Attorney-General is vacant. Azikiwe might have been advised by the Chief Justice of the federation not the Attorney-General.

I suggest you read my previous post again. Please do this with unbiased mind.

You are hilarious; you are such a pedant. Did you not read 'President Azikiwe and the service chiefs were so advised by the Chief Justice and Attorney General of the Federation'? If you did, why did you bother to focus on Attorney General ignoring the Chief Justice that precedes it?

Whenever any publication does not suit your argument, you discredit it without offering alternative publication/literature. Who does the minister of defence report to? If he reports to the PM, then do you need to read a document before you know the service chiefs report to the PM. Do all civil servants report to the PM directly or should all civil servants including drivers and cleaners report to the PM directly. Is that not why we have a chain of command?

Katsumoto:

You are hilarious; you are such a pedant. Did you not read 'President Azikiwe and the service chiefs were so advised by the Chief Justice and Attorney General of the Federation'? If you did, why did you bother to focus on Attorney General ignoring the Chief Justice that precedes it?

Whenever any publication does not suit your argument, you discredit it without offering alternative publication/literature. Who does the minister of defence report to? If he reports to the PM, then do you need to read a document before you know the service chiefs report to the PM. Do all civil servants report to the PM directly or should all civil servants including drivers and cleaners report to the PM directly. Is that not why we have a chain of command?

Pal, I am simply following your plank of the argument. Even the crap of service chiefs politely telling President about refusal of orders was a joke at best. All I wanted you to understand that the situation was politically charged and would have led to crisis in the national assembly if Azikiwe had pursued it because there was no constituted government and such there was no cabinet ministers. As for the Attorney-General stuff, it is just reminder that all Internet objects are not facts.

houvest:

It is intellectual dishonesty presenting only one side of a story without balancing it out with the other. I followed that thread you mentioned and I will like you to present here his response to you when you challenged him on the point you are here raising. That will make for balance before you can now reiterate your point. Please. You are one of the folks I respect his intellectual and unbiased approach to things not that I agree with all . Please uphold that here.

^^^^

What are you talking about? Did you in fact, follow our conversation in that thread?

We discussed the Igbos and the minorities and this clown was so extremely misinformed that he actually believed Edo state could be in Biafra, when this this same Edo state within that same Midwestern region was the place where Benin people went about pointing out Ika-Igbo collaborators with Biafra, and which viewed the declaration of a Republic of Benin by some Okonkwo while the very Oba of Benin was a mere captive as nothing more than an affront. What response to the point I am here raising by him, from that thread, is it that you want me to present? The man is a two-faced slowpoke who blindly spouts contradictory rubbish but is to stupid to realize it.
In that thread he brought up how there was no reason Biafra could not be up to Edo state proper were it to arise again and I told him the truth about what the actual perspective of minorities on this Biafra. He had built up a fanciful idea, shared by many equally deluded individuals that some of the minorities of the east were averse to Biafra, merely because they were "traitors," without bothering to employ any actual logic as to why they would even be averse to Biafra. He also extended his delusion to Edo state, but after rereading this thread the perspective of this i.diot on the minorities becomes quite clear. If the minorities are microscopic and insignificant, leave them alone and don't try to argue that it is necessary for them to be in Biafra. My actual point was that the fool asserts that they could be in Biafra while on the same time considering them insignificant because of their small population. This shows you the mentality of the kind of fool that would claim that a group of people could be in his ideal republic but then consider them of no significance.


If you had intellectual honesty you would realize that when nex made the simplistic claim he did about an "Igbo coup" the proper response of anybody with a brain would be to strike the claim down with cold logic and hard facts and sensible reasoning. What was the fool Onlytruth's response instead? He chose to attack the poster's status as a member of a "microscopic minority" as though that would somehow detract from nex's false claims. This shows the mentality that any ethnic minority finds revolting. I remember arguing that the very same coup was not an Igbo coup with Katsumoto in a thread about Fajuyi and I never once had the foolishness to claim that Katsumoto was making the insinuations or claims he was because he was a Yoruba, and a member of "rival majority" ethnicity and was trying to make the Igbos scapegoats for 1966 because of anything about his status as a Yoruba or a member of a "rival" majority group. Rather, I realized he had arrived at the conclusions he had because he was extremely interested in that period and was trying to reach his own conclusions through detective work about what really made everything go wrong, and what the origin of some peculiarities of the coup were. So I argued against the points as Katsumoto's conclusions from his study of the period, not as Yoruba/rival majority attacks on another group. Equivalently, nex's claims could have dismissed as the oversimplifications and nonfactual assertions by someone who was ignorant and had never bothered to study the period in question, not as the "microscopic minority" perspective. But Onlytruth showed his colors. You can't be a raging ethnic chauvinist and also call for the inclusion of other peoples being included in that same ideal republic of yours.

^^^

My friend move over.

You are taking yourself too seriously. 

Your angst is that I referred to you as minority. Well, YOU ARE MINORITY. Go hang if you can't live with that.

You must really be deluded to think that Igbo care about what your think.

Yes, you are microscopic. L.O.L.

You are insignificant to whatever the Igboman would plan next in Nigeria. Gerrit? 

Onlytruth:

^^^

My friend move over.

You are taking yourself too seriously. 

Your angst is that I referred to you as minority. Well, YOU ARE MINORITY. Go hang if you can't live with that.

You must really be deluded to think that Igbo care about what your think. 

Yes, you are microscopic. L.O.L.

You are insignificant to whatever the Igboman would plan next in Nigeria. Gerrit? 

Did you even understand what I posted? This isn't about me being offended about being called a minority, lol @ that. I even referred to my group as a minority multiple times, which it IS, thank GOD, I don't want my group having any larger responsibility for the pathetic state of Nigeria beyond its individual state as no one in their right mind could ever point to a group of people who were natural state builders and developers and able to acquire wealth and adopt foreign knowledge to suit themselves well when left to themselves and actually assert that they are nothing without Nigeria. The statements that any particular group should be included in Biafra to prevent a "gang-up" and the statement that they are of no significance are of a contradictory nature. If they are the latter, don't be foolish enough to support their "liberation" into a common destiny and don't bother to dream of including them in your ideal republic.

The crux of it all, you dummy, is that insofar as this or that particular minority is insignificant to you it should NEVER be included in your affairs, but a certain Okonkwo and his superiors, and now you, are actually silly enough to think differently. You can not pull some nonsensical facade about how some minority must join Biafra in order to prevent a gang-up and at the same time spew rubbish about the insignificance of such groups and still be taken for anything other than a fool. If they are insignificant they are not even to be used by you unless they have any intention of joining you. The Eastern region of Nigeria was a completely artificial structure with no more inherent validity than the Nigerian state itself and yet somebody had the nerve to think that some of the  insignificant peoples therein had to be wedded to Biafra over very clear objections while claiming the Biafran area need not be wedded to Nigeria. If you think there will be a gang-up against Biafra, think logically about why this would be before you spew rubbish here. If this new Biafra were to invade an entire region of insignificants under the pretext of "liberation," in the middle belt on their way to take out the head of state in Abuja without any prior agreement with the middle belt and the north that said government should be overthrown, in these modern times-nevermind any area of the former Midwest-the same gang up would probably happen. If within the East some did not want a common destiny with Biafra, what makes you think people outside of it would feel Biafra was of any significance to them? Get it through your head you dunce that "insignificant" groups such as my own who don't ask for nor care to know what this or that major ethnic group think or feel about our indifference to Biafra need not bother to hear double-speakers yarn about how so many people in their state should join Biafra when their insignificant selves have no desire to do so.

Who says I care "what the Igboman would plan next in Nigeria"? Let the Igboman worry about what the Igboman would plan next in Nigeria. It will, after all, be his plan to worry to about. Those who are indifferent to these plans cannot possibly care, until some neo-Ojukwu makes the mistake of repeating the mistakes of 1967 and tries to tell his comrades that a group of people who are a microscopic minority to him should share a common destiny with them in order for them to achieve their goals.

In the future don't pretend that you're anybody who's thoughts are capable of extending beyond his tribe and don't throw out "offers" from one side of your mouth to other groups who you are of no more significance to than the other side of your mouth states they are to you.

I would respond to you further but you've already demonstrated that there are limits to your competence and it would be a fallacy to pretend a mere business "mogul" like yourself (as you keep alluding to in various posts) and somebody who has certainly thought about much deeper and more complex things in one hour than you will in your entire life could ever be on the same level of thought.

PhysicsMHD:


^^^^

What are you talking about? Did you in fact, follow our conversation in that thread?

We discussed the Igbos and the minorities and this clown was so extremely misinformed that he actually believed Edo state could be in Biafra, when this this same Edo state within that same Midwestern region was the place where Benin people went about pointing out Ika-Igbo collaborators with Biafra, and which viewed the declaration of a Republic of Benin by some Okonkwo while the very Oba of Benin was a mere captive as nothing more than an affront. What response to the point I am here raising by him, from that thread, is it that you want me to present? [b]The man is a two-faced slowpoke who blindly spouts contradictory rubbish but is to silly to realize it.
In that thread he brought up how there was no reason Biafra could not be up to Edo state proper were it to arise again and I told him the truth about what the actual perspective of minorities on this Biafra. He had built up a fanciful idea, shared by many equally deluded individuals that some of the minorities of the east were averse to Biafra, merely because they were "traitors," without bothering to employ any actual logic as to why they would even be averse to Biafra. He also extended his delusion to Edo state, but after rereading this thread the perspective of this i.diot on the minorities becomes quite clear. If the minorities are microscopic and insignificant, leave them alone and don't try to argue that it is necessary for them to be in Biafra. My actual point was that the fool asserts that they could be in Biafra while on the same time considering them insignificant because of their small population. This shows you the mentality of the kind of fool that would claim that a group of people could be in his ideal republic but then consider them of no significance.


If you had intellectual honesty you would realize that when nex made the simplistic claim he did about an "Igbo coup" the proper response of anybody with a brain would be to strike the claim down with cold logic and hard facts and sensible reasoning. What was the fool Onlytruth's response instead? He chose to attack the poster's status as a member of a "microscopic minority" as though that would somehow detract from nex's false claims. This shows the mentality that any ethnic minority finds revolting.[/b] I remember arguing that the very same coup was not an Igbo coup with Katsumoto in a thread about Fajuyi and I never once had the foolishness to claim that Katsumoto was making the insinuations or claims he was because he was a Yoruba, and a member of "rival majority" ethnicity and was trying to make the Igbos scapegoats for 1966 because of anything about his status as a Yoruba or a member of a "rival" majority group. Rather, I realized he had arrived at the conclusions he had because he was extremely interested in that period and was trying to reach his own conclusions through detective work about what really made everything go wrong, and what the origin of some peculiarities of the coup were. So I argued against the points as Katsumoto's conclusions from his study of the period, not as Yoruba/rival majority attacks on another group. Equivalently, nex's claims could have dismissed as the oversimplifications and nonfactual assertions by someone who was ignorant and had never bothered to study the period in question, not as the "microscopic minority" perspective. But Onlytruth showed his colors. You can't be a raging ethnic chauvinist and also call for the inclusion of other peoples being included in that same ideal republic of yours.

OnlyTruth has been found out again; I need not say more. When you have a superior argument to OnlyTruth in a debate, he immediately brings up ethnicity.

why do some people always play the ethnic card

jason12345:

why do some people always play the ethnic card

Because they have a victim mentality. They tell you that they are superior to you in every endeavour but as soon as they fail to achieve an objective, they blame you.

.

Afaukwu:

There is no mysteries sorrounding the 1966 coup! pls spare us. you are mentioning the 1966 coup as if it's something that happened centuries ago, there are still living withnesses today who can tell their own version of event just as MAX SIOLLUN is telling his own version.

It's a slap on the intellegence of nigerians when people want to start 're-writing' facts. I know the igbos are not proud of the Major Nzeogwu Kaduna led coup, but pls get over it!

In some constitutions (not Nigeria), the prime minister is a subordinate to the president. The prime minister is more or less a deputy president. Probably, at Independence, the constitution was not properly interpreted.

Katsumoto:

OnlyTruth has been found out again; I need not say more. When you have a superior argument to OnlyTruth in a debate, he immediately brings up ethnicity.

If I was OnlyTruth and his cohorts, I'd stay away from a computer and go into rehab. . . .

Dude definitely has the Computer equivalent of a Crack habit: he sees his own reality! Similar to what narcotics do to the brain of an otherwise sane man!

PhysicsMHD:


I would respond to you further but you've already demonstrated that there are limits to your competence and it would be a fallacy to pretend a mere business "mogul" like yourself (as you keep alluding to in various posts)

OnlyTruth[b] A BUSINESS MOGUL?[/b]

ROFLMAO!!!!!

PhysicsMHD:

Did you even understand what I posted? This isn't about me being offended about being called a minority, lol @ that. I even referred to my group as a minority multiple times, which it IS, thank GOD, I don't want my group having any larger responsibility for the pathetic state of Nigeria beyond its individual state as no one in their right mind could ever point to a group of people who were natural state builders and developers and able to acquire wealth and adopt foreign knowledge to suit themselves well when left to themselves and actually assert that they are nothing without Nigeria. The statements that any particular group should be included in Biafra to prevent a "gang-up" and the statement that they are of no significance are of a contradictory nature. If they are the latter, don't be foolish enough to support their "liberation" into a common destiny and don't bother to dream of including them in your ideal republic.

The crux of it all, you dummy, is that insofar as this or that particular minority is insignificant to you it should NEVER be included in your affairs, but a certain Okonkwo and his superiors, and now you, are actually silly enough to think differently. You can not pull some nonsensical facade about how some minority must join Biafra in order to prevent a gang-up and at the same time spew rubbish about the insignificance of such groups and still be taken for anything other than a fool. If they are insignificant they are not even to be used by you unless they have any intention of joining you. The Eastern region of Nigeria was a completely artificial structure with no more inherent validity than the Nigerian state itself and yet somebody had the nerve to think that some of the  insignificant peoples therein had to be wedded to Biafra over very clear objections while claiming the Biafran area need not be wedded to Nigeria. If you think there will be a gang-up against Biafra, think logically about why this would be before you spew rubbish here. If this new Biafra were to invade an entire region of insignificants under the pretext of "liberation," in the middle belt on their way to take out the head of state in Abuja without any prior agreement with the middle belt and the north that said government should be overthrown, in these modern times-nevermind any area of the former Midwest-the same gang up would probably happen. If within the East some did not want a common destiny with Biafra, what makes you think people outside of it would feel Biafra was of any significance to them? Get it through your head you dunce that "insignificant" groups such as my own who don't ask for nor care to know what this or that major ethnic group think or feel about our indifference to Biafra need not bother to hear double-speakers yarn about how so many people in their state should join Biafra when their insignificant selves have no desire to do so.

Who says I care "what the Igboman would plan next in Nigeria"? Let the Igboman worry about what the Igboman would plan next in Nigeria. It will, after all, be his plan to worry to about. Those who are indifferent to these plans cannot possibly care, until some neo-Ojukwu makes the mistake of repeating the mistakes of 1967 and tries to tell his comrades that a group of people who are a microscopic minority to him should share a common destiny with them in order for them to achieve their goals.

In the future don't pretend that you're anybody who's thoughts are capable of extending beyond his tribe and don't throw out "offers" from one side of your mouth to other groups who you are of no more significance to than the other side of your mouth states they are to you.

I would respond to you further but you've already demonstrated that there are limits to your competence and it would be a fallacy to pretend a mere business "mogul" like yourself (as you keep alluding to in various posts) and somebody who has certainly thought about much deeper and more complex things in one hour than you will in your entire life could ever be on the same level of thought.

A wise man once told me that if you see a man talking at length to respond to a simple question, he is trying to sell a windy point. 

I thought I had already agreed with you that Edo people are irrelevant to whatever the Igbo would plan next in Nigeria. So what are your long lines about? 

As far as I'm concerned, NOBODY can ever gang up against Ndigbo again in Nigeria.

Katsumoto:

Because they have a victim mentality. They tell you that they are superior to you in every endeavour but as soon as they fail to achieve an objective, they blame you.

You sound like a broken record. "Victim mentality". I'm sure in your book, the state of Israel also suffers from victim mentality.

There is nothing wrong in probing and studying your enemies to know them well. It only gives you advantage in the day of evil.

I hope my "victim mentality" gives me the upper hand next time in Nigeria, 'cos it will happen.

Onlytruth:

You sound like a broken record. "Victim mentality". I'm sure in your book, the state of Israel also suffers from victim mentality.

There is nothing wrong in probing and studying your enemies to know them well. It only gives you advantage in the day of evil.

I hope my "victim mentality" gives me the upper hand next time in Nigeria, 'cos it will happen.

You sit in the comfort of your home in the US, yet you are hoping that there is a conflict in Nigeria so that you have the 'upper hand'.

Onlytruth:

You sound like a broken record. "Victim mentality". I'm sure in your book, the state of Israel also suffers from victim mentality.

There is nothing wrong in probing and studying your enemies to know them well. It only gives you advantage in the day of evil.

I hope my "victim mentality" gives me the upper hand next time in Nigeria, 'cos it will happen.

how can you say that!!!

i don't blame you. you will be in usa when nigerians die in their thousands.

jason12345:

how can you say that!!!

i don't blame you. you will be in usa when nigerians die in their thousands.

My friend sharap dia.

Who told you I'm in the US? But even of I am.  Idiots like you will soon start saying that Nigerians in diaspora have no right to discuss Nigerian affairs.

Weren't you the slowpoke that was asking me the other day why I am so pessimistic about Nigeria?

Didn't you just start a thread about Biafra, trying to justify the betrayal your people perpetrated against Ndigbo?

Whenever you guys talk about a "southern Nigeria" I fall off my chair laughing. 

You would do well to stop listening to the Katsumotos of nairaland. Not that I care though. 

Again, do I believe that 1966 can happen again in Nigeria?  ABSOLUTELY YES!

All the signs are there.

The main issue for me is, how should Ndigbo react to it?

I can say now with every emphasis that Ndigbo will do well to look southwards FIRST before even looking up north.

I dare any southern slowpoke to try us next time. 

Onlytruth:

My friend sharap dia.

Who told you I'm in the US? But even of I am.  Idiots like you will soon start saying that Nigerians in diaspora have no right to discuss Nigerian affairs.

Weren't you the slowpoke that was asking me the other day why I am so pessimistic about Nigeria?

Didn't you just start a thread about Biafra, trying to justify the betrayal your people perpetrated against Ndigbo?

Whenever you guys talk about a "southern Nigeria" I fall off my chair laughing. 

You would do well by stopping to listen to the Katsumotos of nairaland. Not that I care though. 

you have serious issues . me justify? you are an id.iot. . are you okay at all. i was asking why biafra attacked yoruba region you are tell me i was justifying. it was an igbo man that justified why biafrans were killed,not me. he even said ojukwu shouldn't have invaded

About you coming to the western region before you go north. i assure you, 95% of the baifrans would probably have been dead before you even pass edo state. you are really crazy with this your invasion thing . i just pity you.
so i beg you, when you plan a coup again, make sure you are in NIGERIA and you lead the invasion because you will see how "cowardly" we are . if this yoruba people are cowardly as you always say, how come when obj did a coup they did not kill yorubas but when ironsi did they kill alot of people. you are sick upstairs.

i don't pray for war and i will never!!! do you know how many people, women and children that will die if there is a war in nigeria ( a population of over 150 million ).

the only sad part is that many igbos would die as well as yorubas and hausas but you wouldn't be part of them!!!

you people (e-warriors) are very provocative, you think you can just invade like ojukwu (who senselessly caused the killing of millions of igbos and ran away.coward) invaded the western region.lol i laugh in igbo. you will just die a senseless death.

you always want people to be part of you (ikwerri, ika and co), involve the minorities near you. i just wish the army dont kill the innocent people especially women and children but i want them to go for the id.iots that started the war.

even ojukwu does not care for biafra, he is at home enjoying retirement while you are in usa instigating war. if any life is lost during any war may it be upon you, the instigator.

rubbish

Onlytruth:

A wise man once told me that if you see a man talking at length to respond to a simple question, he is trying to sell a windy point. 

I thought I had already agreed with you that Edo people are irrelevant to whatever the Igbo would plan next in Nigeria. So what are your long lines about? 

As far as I'm concerned, NOBODY can ever gang up against Ndigbo again in Nigeria.

pride comes before a fall . and yet you scream against marginalisation. you are the ones marginalising yourselves with this "us vs them" mentalityand the "inclusive thing".

thats what a fellow igbo man chinenyeN has always tried to pass across but you are just too blinded by your hated for peace, you just ignore him or insult him. its a pity

Onlytruth:

Again, do I believe that 1966 can happen again in Nigeria?  ABSOLUTELY YES!

All the signs are there.

The main issue for me is, how should Ndigbo react to it?

I can say now with every emphasis that Ndigbo will do well to look southwards FIRST before even looking up north.

I dare any southern slowpoke to try us next time. 

They key is to not look at it in a way of "who to to watch out for first". There is nothing like friendship but interest,diplomacy, and freedom of choice for a people to have or make its own options should be what you thrive for. Tread softly and be humbled and think smart never say never especially if every corner is not mastered by you or your people.

chyz:

They key is to not look at it in a way of "who to to watch out for first". There is nothing like friendship but interest,diplomacy, and freedom of choice for a people to have or make its own options should be what you thrive for. Tread softly and be humbled and think smart never say never especially if every corner is not mastered by you or your people.

WISE WORDS .
i did not mean to offend any true igbo.but dede1 and onlyt just want to start what they cannot finish

chyz:

They key is to not look at it in a way of "who to to watch out for first". There is nothing like friendship but interest,diplomacy, and freedom of choice for a people to have or make its own options should be what you thrive for. Tread softly and be humbled and think smart never say never especially if every corner is not mastered by you or your people.

its because of diplomacy and respect for and by other regions in nigeria thats why SS is have a president from their region.
but you e-warriors (ot,dede1, co) have ranted about your bravery and so called invasion. you don't respect other regions but you expect them to respect you no its not possible.
the SS are respected by other regions and they it. you now want to attach yourselves to them to gain respect .

i just joined NL. i have been going through what you guys have been saying. i started off as a neutral and i am still a neutral but the e-warriors have to be honest with themselves. what happened? why are we being marginalised? the SS that you so boldly call minorities are running nigeria. why? ask yourselves and you just might break this york of hatred. anyway, pls, when you want to start your trouble, don't involve innocent women and children. good luck in your invasion, you will need it