gameova:
I love this woman

Waste of libido, you are not her type. Better find Kanu... He could be bisexual.

almayda:
Who wanted the war so badly and went about it even so badly?Russia started a war with Ukraine,peradventure it goes badly,which is looking obvious,Russia will blame it on the USA for supporting Ukraine right? You are learned, look very objectively, I'm certain you will see who to blame...May the soul of that person rest in peace.

Wrong advice, anybody who a not objective is not learned. My opinion.

almayda:
Who wanted the war so badly and went about it even so badly?Russia started a war with Ukraine,peradventure it goes badly,which is looking obvious,Russia will blame it on the USA for supporting Ukraine right? You are learned, look very objectively, I'm certain you will see who to blame...May the soul of that person rest in peace.

Wrong advice,please anybody who a not objective is not learned. My opinion.

almayda:
Who wanted the war so badly and went about it even so badly?Russia started a war with Ukraine,peradventure it goes badly,which is looking obvious,Russia will blame it on the USA for supporting Ukraine right? You are learned, look very objectively, I'm certain you will see who to blame...May the soul of that person rest in peace.

Wrong advice,please do you callanybody who a not objective learned.?

Anigreat:




I really love the great Igbo tribe even though I am not Igbo. Even in the face of oppression the fear no one, they speak their mind and fear no idiot. Infact it's this inherent behavioral disposition of fearlessness constantly and consistently displayed by them that I believe the saying that goes thus: "Igbo man bows for no one except his chi"

This fearless trait is not only found in their men but also their women. Aba women riot of 1929 came to mind were Ikonnia,Nwannedia and Nwugo, beautiful Igbo women lead the protest successfully, and recently the case of Uju and the queen is a clear study of what their women is made of. God bless them.

Don't think that Igbo men will run away from their ancestral land to Benin republic or Cote D'Ivoire, they fight bravely and die as warriors..while others run and still die as cowards.

This cultural character is the reason Igbo's are where they are in the political sphere of Nigeria. the north faced the British in the precolonial wars and sensing that the would be defeated completely the agreed to surrender and sign a pact and the British gave them Nigeria.
fearlessness is foolishness. One great instinct for survival is fear, a culture that don't fear will not survive

This woman is a clout chaser. she doesn't represent Igbo.

Broveens42:



You actually fell for the bait after you realized, you lost the argument..

Some one feels Britain was directly involved in a genocide and you say she's hypocritical?.. lol the dumbest thing I have ever heard. You could as well say she's hypocritical for not calling out that wicked village uncle in her village who has killed innocent persons if there's any



You actually fell for a bait. . It has confirmed my suspicion about the motive of your write-up; to dare her to wish excruciating pain to a dead man ..
Again I say nothing will happen... Infact it will be a good ground for an opposition to come back to power...

That a black professor was victimized for an expression of anger... hahahaha... Democrats won't be so dumb .....



EDUCATION IS DEAD IN NIGERIA

Be coherent in your expression. Uju wished a dying queen an excruciating pain. I dare her to wish Jimmy Carter the same and see what would happen to her head in the same US where there is freedom of speech. Trust me, one of the patriotic gun-loving American would use her head for practice and absolute nothing would happen

oyatz:




Try to be objective and separate issues.

1) Nigeria had and still has a right to protect itself ,to determine what comes into and out of her territory.

2) Nigeria effected air, land and sea blocked of the breakaway region to prevent smuggling of weapons which the secessionists were using against the country.

3) The FMG provided for a safe landed corridor through which Foods and reliefs materials could get to the people at the Theatres of the war subject to 100% inspection by the agents of the Federal Military Government to make sure that weapons weren't snuggled in.

4) The Biafran Leadership rejected this noble offer and instead opted for airlifting of foods from Sao Tome and Principe which was costly and less effective.

5) The Starvation is largely a result of the failures of the Ojukwu-led Biafran Leadership. QED

The blockade effected by Nigeria and Britain led to deaths if many people, Im talking about the aged, women and children. Thats not something anyone forgets in a hurry unless it didnt happen to them.

Then there is this talk about Gowon offering Ojukwu a land corridor so that aid could be delivered to the suffering people, and that Ojukwu turned it down.

A total lie

I posted this about Professor Aluko, a Yoruba man who was both friends to Ojukwu and Gowon, and was heavily involved in trying to reconcile both men throughout the war, in a recent thread that Ojukwu rejected aid coming in through a land corridor

Dr Aluko completely destroyed Goldsteins letter in 2012, it was posted here in the previous thread about this

https://www.nairaland.com/3854388/biafra-war-nigeria-starvation-land

Below is what Dr Aluko said


Dr. Aluko:
It is obfuscation at its most blatant to read
Goldstein letter outside of the rationale for action
taken by Ojukwu and the Biafran leadership.
I'll attempt to answer your earlier questions posed
to me alonsgide this, because they are related.
- The first question was why Ojukwu did not, given
that Biafra had shrunk dramatically, not surrender
to save starving Biafrans.


- The second is, to link it to the substance of
Goldstein's letter, why Ojukwu insisted on ceasefire
and the airlift of relief to Biafrans as the only
grounds or conditions for accepting relief.
First, Ojukwu knew that an internationally observed
ceasefire was the only guarantee for the security
and safety of the Biafran. Second, the atrocities
recorded wherever the federal forces liberated lent
credence to that demand. In fact, it made it
imperative, particularly because the Lagos regime
was not prepared to negotiate in true faith for the
amicable end of the conflict.


The war strategy of the Gowon administration was
hell-bent on Biafra's complete surrender without
guarantees. No political and military leader will
agree to that kind of suicide. I'll return to this
point. But let me quote from Susan Cronje's quite
illuminating book, The World and Nigeria: The
Diplomatic History of the Biafran war 1967-1970
( I'd also recommend that you read the other,
Biafra: Britain's Shame). Cronje writes this about
the meeting in Niamey referenced by Goldstein:
"The Nigerian delegation was led by Chief
Awolowo, but General Gowon arrived in Niamey on
16 July and addressed the meeting as an
'observer.'

The main theme of his speech was a
warning that if the 'rebels persist in their
contemptuous attitude to the conference table the
federal government will have no choice but to take
over the remaining rebel-held areas...In military
terms the rebellion is virtually suppressed already.'
But the atmosphere had suibtly changed. hamani
diori had altrady suggested that the committee's
consultative role should be changed to a mediatory
one, and after Gowon's address the committee
went into closed session. Eventually it was
announced that that Ojukwu had been asked to
attend, and Gowon who had already returned to
Lagos flew back to Niamey the following day,
cancelling all engagements. His presence in
Niamey was required not for a meeting with
Ojukwu but to reply to a truce proposal put forward
among others by General Ankrah. This called for a
ten-mile wide demilitarized zone patrolled by
neutral troops to allow relief supplies to pass to
Biafran refugees. According to one account of the
debate, Gowon is said to have turned to General
Ankrah, saying, 'You are a military man: you know
what it is with commanders.'

The suggestion that
he might be unable to restrain his army was
reinforced when he warned the committee that if it
did not see things his way they would have to have
'a Nigeria without me.' According to a Niamey
radio report the following day, General Gowon
rejected the resolution put to him by the O.A.U.
committee; the main points of this resolution were
the establishment of a demilitarized zone and 'an
international force which would include neutral
observers acceptable to both sides.' Ghana and
Cameroun, the broadcast said, had offered
shipping facilities for moving relief supplies.
Ojukwu arrived in Niamey on 19 July in President
Houphet-Boigny's private jet.

The Biafran
delegation, when it was fully assembled, included
Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, the former Nigerian president,
Dr. Okpara, former Eastern Nigerian premier, Sir
Louis Mbanefo, Dr. Eni Njoku and several other
notables; Lagos was not far off in suggesting that
the 'entire rebel leadership' had assembled in
Niger. At the end of the meeting between Ojukwu
and the consltative committee - Gowon had
returned to Lagos two days previously - a
communique was issued. Two versions appear to
be in existence; the one broadcast by Niamey radio
read:

(1) the Nigerian Federal Military Government
and Colonel Ojukwu have agreed to meet immediately in Niamey under the chairmanship of
President Diori Hamani in order to begin
preliminary talks on a speedy resumption of
Nigerian peace negotiations;

(2) the Nigerian
Federal Military Government and Colonel Ojukwu
have agreed to resume as soon as possible peace
negotiations in Addis Ababa under the auspices of
the O.A.U Consultative Committee on Nigeria.' The
version as broadcast by Lagos - and which does
not pretend to be a verbatim report - said that the
committee had called on both parties to resume
peace talks as soon as possible, '... with the
objecvtive of preserving Nigeria's territiorial
integrity and guaranteeing the security of all its
inhabitants.' The committee said, according to this
broadcast, that 'it will be in contact with the federal
military government, and Ojukwu or his
representativs may at any time contact any
member government of the committee.' The Lagos
version went on to cite two further point of which
ther was no mention in the Niamey version, both
dealing with relief, and appealing to the two sides
to undertake various mesures to alleviate the
suffering among war victims.


In view of the strong criticism that has been
levelled at the Biafran leadership for its
intrasigence, and the high praise heaped o General
Gowon and his Government for humanitarian
concern and magnanimity, it should be stressed
that in Niamey Gowon rejected the O.A.U
proposals for a partial truce and international
policing of relief routes, while Ojukwu was
prepared to accept both these proposals. When
Ojukwu returned to Biafra, he gave a press
conference at which he was asked whether his
invitation to the OAU had meant any form of
recognition of him. For once Ojukwu was cautious
in his reply: 'Let's put it this way. My presence in
Niamey for once represents the O.A.U's acceptance
that there are two sides to a conflict.' He would not
reveal any further details about the forthcoming
Addis Ababa peace talk, but said, 'I find myself in
a rather simillar situation as after Aburi.' He did
not want to say anything in case Lagos started
'interpreting it, and go back to square
one..." (302-303)

The foregoing provides the clear context of the
situation, that it was not Ojukwu, but Gowon who
rejected the proposals by which Ojukwu and the
Biafran leadership was prepared to abide.The
context is clearly established and makes nonsense
of Golsdstein's ground for resignation.

While the Biafran government was prepared to act
without precondition, the Nigerian authorities
persistenly insisted on Biafran surrender. It was a
deliberate and determined argument made to make
certain that the only solution was by a military
solution because Lagos knew that the basic
grounds on which it made its offer of relief was
conditional and unconscionable.

It was to disavow
the very basic reason why Biafra defended itself in
the first place: its sovereignty as a means to the
safety, security and dignity of its population. Now,
were the Gowon administration acting in good
faith, that would be a differet matter. What
guaratees could Biafrans have, had Ojukwu
surrendered as a condition for food? None.
Here is the evidence narrated by John Stremlau in
his The International Politics of the Nigerian Civil
War how Gowon's cable upturned the agreements
reached in May 1968 in kampala between Eni
Njoku and Enahoro in which Eni Njoku had in fact
"conceded the evntuality of one-Nigeria."

As Stremalau notes, "Whereas Enahoro had left
acceptance of the twelve-state structure implicit
in his propsals, Gowon insisted that before any
agreement was reached the rebels must explictly
embrace the twelve states. In addition, Gowon
stipulated that there would be no question of an
interim commission for the rebel-held areas, there
would be no recruitment and formation of Ibo
units into the federal armed forces, and no
elements of the rebel troops or police would be
allowed to retain their arms. Gowon's instruction,
which did not reach Kampala until shortly after
Enahoro had made his presentation, clearly
reflected the views of the more hawkish elements
in the federal government" (172-173).


To put these in summary:
(a) Ojukwu did not reject relief, he wanted the
security and guarantee of safety for Biafrans. He
was in fact willing to accept the O.A.U's proposals

(b) Gowon and the Lagos administration
manipulated international propaganda, as testified
in the versions of the broadcasts of the Niamey
agreement to further its own goals of the
liquidation of Biafra

(c) The federal government was not, in spite of all
the efforts made by the Biafrans willing to
negotiate peace, they were hell-bent on
"surrender" as the only condition for the survival
of the Biafran population.

If anybody must bear responsbility, it must be
those who kept using the talks to elongate the
suffering of the civilian population, and clearly this
are the 'hawks" who placed the only condition for
peace on Biafra's surrender and liquidation. And
there, you have it.

Proudlyomonna:


Shut up jareh go and look for your fellow useless ipob urchins to help you masturbate away your future on senseless tribal hate and gbasgbos I no dey do nonsense,e get watin person dey pass na
Shun senseless tribal hate and bigotry it makes people sound very stupid

Imagine he called me ipob urchin

adenigga:


Source: https://punchng.com/Britain-owes-Igbo-apology-compensation-for-Biafras-destruction-Prof-Anya

The Igbos don't like being Nigerians likewise people like me from the north don't want it, North was forcefully join with south by UK not by their wish, hypocrite is what keeps Nigeria together otherwise everybody prefer Nigeria to be divided south east politicians are � supporting ipob likewise Northern politicians will also support the breakage of North from Nigeria but hypocrite will not let them so also south west and south south

Weedcrusher:


Be coherent in your expression. Uju wished a dying queen an excruciating pain. I dare her to wish Jimmy Carter the same and see what would happen to her head in the same US where there is freedom of speech. Trust me, one of the patriotic gun-loving American would use her head for practice and absolute nothing would happen

I'm happy you are revealing your real intent
That's what happens when you lose an argument.
your problem: extremism has eaten deep into your head.
Most Americans would consider wishing a DEAD man 'pain' as Hilarious.
You hear of gun violence in America and you are already thinking of extremism ?
What a dumb reasoning.
They actually pull the trigger for unknown reasons most at times...and even under psychopathic conditions



EDUCATION IS DEAD IN NIGERIA

gidgiddy:


The blockade effected by Nigeria and Britain led to deaths if many people, Im talking about the aged, women and children. Thats not something anyone forgets in a hurry unless it didnt happen to them.

Then there is this talk about Gowon offering Ojukwu a land corridor so that aid could be delivered to the suffering people, and that Ojukwu turned it down.

A total lie

I posted this about Professor Aluko, a Yoruba man who was both friends to Ojukwu and Gowon, and was heavily involved in trying to reconcile both men throughout the war, in a recent thread that Ojukwu rejected aid coming in through a land corridor

Dr Aluko completely destroyed Goldsteins letter in 2012, it was posted here in the previous thread about this

https://www.nairaland.com/3854388/biafra-war-nigeria-starvation-land

Below is what Dr Aluko said


Dr. Aluko:
It is obfuscation at its most blatant to read
Goldstein letter outside of the rationale for action
taken by Ojukwu and the Biafran leadership.
I'll attempt to answer your earlier questions posed
to me alonsgide this, because they are related.
- The first question was why Ojukwu did not, given
that Biafra had shrunk dramatically, not surrender
to save starving Biafrans.


- The second is, to link it to the substance of
Goldstein's letter, why Ojukwu insisted on ceasefire
and the airlift of relief to Biafrans as the only
grounds or conditions for accepting relief.
First, Ojukwu knew that an internationally observed
ceasefire was the only guarantee for the security
and safety of the Biafran. Second, the atrocities
recorded wherever the federal forces liberated lent
credence to that demand. In fact, it made it
imperative, particularly because the Lagos regime
was not prepared to negotiate in true faith for the
amicable end of the conflict.


The war strategy of the Gowon administration was
hell-bent on Biafra's complete surrender without
guarantees. No political and military leader will
agree to that kind of suicide. I'll return to this
point. But let me quote from Susan Cronje's quite
illuminating book, The World and Nigeria: The
Diplomatic History of the Biafran war 1967-1970
( I'd also recommend that you read the other,
Biafra: Britain's Shame). Cronje writes this about
the meeting in Niamey referenced by Goldstein:
"The Nigerian delegation was led by Chief
Awolowo, but General Gowon arrived in Niamey on
16 July and addressed the meeting as an
'observer.'

The main theme of his speech was a
warning that if the 'rebels persist in their
contemptuous attitude to the conference table the
federal government will have no choice but to take
over the remaining rebel-held areas...In military
terms the rebellion is virtually suppressed already.'
But the atmosphere had suibtly changed. hamani
diori had altrady suggested that the committee's
consultative role should be changed to a mediatory
one, and after Gowon's address the committee
went into closed session. Eventually it was
announced that that Ojukwu had been asked to
attend, and Gowon who had already returned to
Lagos flew back to Niamey the following day,
cancelling all engagements. His presence in
Niamey was required not for a meeting with
Ojukwu but to reply to a truce proposal put forward
among others by General Ankrah. This called for a
ten-mile wide demilitarized zone patrolled by
neutral troops to allow relief supplies to pass to
Biafran refugees. According to one account of the
debate, Gowon is said to have turned to General
Ankrah, saying, 'You are a military man: you know
what it is with commanders.'

The suggestion that
he might be unable to restrain his army was
reinforced when he warned the committee that if it
did not see things his way they would have to have
'a Nigeria without me.' According to a Niamey
radio report the following day, General Gowon
rejected the resolution put to him by the O.A.U.
committee; the main points of this resolution were
the establishment of a demilitarized zone and 'an
international force which would include neutral
observers acceptable to both sides.' Ghana and
Cameroun, the broadcast said, had offered
shipping facilities for moving relief supplies.
Ojukwu arrived in Niamey on 19 July in President
Houphet-Boigny's private jet.

The Biafran
delegation, when it was fully assembled, included
Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, the former Nigerian president,
Dr. Okpara, former Eastern Nigerian premier, Sir
Louis Mbanefo, Dr. Eni Njoku and several other
notables; Lagos was not far off in suggesting that
the 'entire rebel leadership' had assembled in
Niger. At the end of the meeting between Ojukwu
and the consltative committee - Gowon had
returned to Lagos two days previously - a
communique was issued. Two versions appear to
be in existence; the one broadcast by Niamey radio
read:

(1) the Nigerian Federal Military Government
and Colonel Ojukwu have agreed to meet immediately in Niamey under the chairmanship of
President Diori Hamani in order to begin
preliminary talks on a speedy resumption of
Nigerian peace negotiations;

(2) the Nigerian
Federal Military Government and Colonel Ojukwu
have agreed to resume as soon as possible peace
negotiations in Addis Ababa under the auspices of
the O.A.U Consultative Committee on Nigeria.' The
version as broadcast by Lagos - and which does
not pretend to be a verbatim report - said that the
committee had called on both parties to resume
peace talks as soon as possible, '... with the
objecvtive of preserving Nigeria's territiorial
integrity and guaranteeing the security of all its
inhabitants.' The committee said, according to this
broadcast, that 'it will be in contact with the federal
military government, and Ojukwu or his
representativs may at any time contact any
member government of the committee.' The Lagos
version went on to cite two further point of which
ther was no mention in the Niamey version, both
dealing with relief, and appealing to the two sides
to undertake various mesures to alleviate the
suffering among war victims.


In view of the strong criticism that has been
levelled at the Biafran leadership for its
intrasigence, and the high praise heaped o General
Gowon and his Government for humanitarian
concern and magnanimity, it should be stressed
that in Niamey Gowon rejected the O.A.U
proposals for a partial truce and international
policing of relief routes, while Ojukwu was
prepared to accept both these proposals. When
Ojukwu returned to Biafra, he gave a press
conference at which he was asked whether his
invitation to the OAU had meant any form of
recognition of him. For once Ojukwu was cautious
in his reply: 'Let's put it this way. My presence in
Niamey for once represents the O.A.U's acceptance
that there are two sides to a conflict.' He would not
reveal any further details about the forthcoming
Addis Ababa peace talk, but said, 'I find myself in
a rather simillar situation as after Aburi.' He did
not want to say anything in case Lagos started
'interpreting it, and go back to square
one..." (302-303)

The foregoing provides the clear context of the
situation, that it was not Ojukwu, but Gowon who
rejected the proposals by which Ojukwu and the
Biafran leadership was prepared to abide.The
context is clearly established and makes nonsense
of Golsdstein's ground for resignation.

While the Biafran government was prepared to act
without precondition, the Nigerian authorities
persistenly insisted on Biafran surrender. It was a
deliberate and determined argument made to make
certain that the only solution was by a military
solution because Lagos knew that the basic
grounds on which it made its offer of relief was
conditional and unconscionable.

It was to disavow
the very basic reason why Biafra defended itself in
the first place: its sovereignty as a means to the
safety, security and dignity of its population. Now,
were the Gowon administration acting in good
faith, that would be a differet matter. What
guaratees could Biafrans have, had Ojukwu
surrendered as a condition for food? None.
Here is the evidence narrated by John Stremlau in
his The International Politics of the Nigerian Civil
War how Gowon's cable upturned the agreements
reached in May 1968 in kampala between Eni
Njoku and Enahoro in which Eni Njoku had in fact
"conceded the evntuality of one-Nigeria."

As Stremalau notes, "Whereas Enahoro had left
acceptance of the twelve-state structure implicit
in his propsals, Gowon insisted that before any
agreement was reached the rebels must explictly
embrace the twelve states. In addition, Gowon
stipulated that there would be no question of an
interim commission for the rebel-held areas, there
would be no recruitment and formation of Ibo
units into the federal armed forces, and no
elements of the rebel troops or police would be
allowed to retain their arms. Gowon's instruction,
which did not reach Kampala until shortly after
Enahoro had made his presentation, clearly
reflected the views of the more hawkish elements
in the federal government" (172-173).


To put these in summary:
(a) Ojukwu did not reject relief, he wanted the
security and guarantee of safety for Biafrans. He
was in fact willing to accept the O.A.U's proposals

(b) Gowon and the Lagos administration
manipulated international propaganda, as testified
in the versions of the broadcasts of the Niamey
agreement to further its own goals of the
liquidation of Biafra

(c) The federal government was not, in spite of all
the efforts made by the Biafrans willing to
negotiate peace, they were hell-bent on
"surrender" as the only condition for the survival
of the Biafran population.

If anybody must bear responsbility, it must be
those who kept using the talks to elongate the
suffering of the civilian population, and clearly this
are the 'hawks" who placed the only condition for
peace on Biafra's surrender and liquidation. And
there, you have it.

Very accurate and precise. It's a shame these follows masturbate on evil and lies. The truth remains that OJUKWU was a very patriotic Nigerian and even more Patriot to his Igbo people, he was very reluctant to go to war and also very reluctant to surrender without the safety of his people assured.

Thanks

Truthdeypain:


Very accurate and precise. It's a shame these follows masturbate on evil and lies. The truth remains that OJUKWU was a very patriotic Nigerian and even more Patriot to his Igbo people, he was very reluctant to go to war and also very reluctant to surrender without the safety of his people assured.

Thanks

That is why they don't Wana teach History...
I'm happy what a few on fbook are doing now...
Educating our kids on their real History and the real aggressors..

Infact it seems the incarceration of N. Kanu has really opened the eyes of everyone..

Broveens42:



I'm happy you are revealing your real intent
That's what happens when you lose an argument.
your problem: extremism has eaten deep into your head.
Most Americans would consider wishing a DEAD man 'pain' as Hilarious.
You hear of gun violence in America and you are already thinking of extremism ?
What a dumb reasoning.
They actually pull the trigger for unknown reasons most at times...and even under psychopathic conditions



EDUCATION IS DEAD IN NIGERIA

Coming from someone that lives in Nigeria and probably never left the shores of the country. ....I encourage you and Uju to try wish a dying stateman an excruciating pain in America and see how Americans would laugh to that joke with guns to your head.

Before you talk about education being dead, try to know the difference between a dying person and a dead person.

viodemus:



pussen bot detected. 23 years in power, as per the only man with a brain in russia.

Russian Visa dey o, no line, na 9 minutes wait time.

Ukraine has been bravery tested. And they are confirmed.

The only brainless bot is you your beloved Ukraine level of bravery would be really tested by the end of this year

Goke7:


don't mind them jare, My uncle died in the same war, I suppose dey ask for apology like so many non igbos.

As in eehn ....dem no wan let us hear word ,always playing the victim card.

gidgiddy:


Its good that you have moved on, 3 million of your people were not killed by Nigeria. For Uju who lost millions of her people, there is nothing to on to

It's a fucking war , one side must lose and one side must win . You guys should rest.

citizenY:


My dick is bigger than your own syndrome. If you had liver, dem for no carry you as slave. Once you enter boat, Kapish. Stop shadow boxing

Abeg just park go one side

Which of the tribes in subsaharan Africa that was not sold as slaves?

The facts I stated are there

The average Igbo man fears no one from history hundreds of years ago

The igbos were known in American slavery.
They were written about there stubborness
Even choosing to die than allow oppression

They gave the British toughest time during colonialism

Up till today that stubborness is still there

The average Igbo man fears no body

When entire Nigerian tribes were shouting Buhari everywhere

The igbos looked and said God forbid

And still rejected him in 2019

Today the whole nation is crying

But still the igbos survived Buhari

So Mr just pack yourself oneside

Talk the uniqueness of your tribe

Don't let jealousy eat you up

Johnlegacy57:

This cultural character is the reason Igbo's are where they are in the political sphere of Nigeria. the north faced the British in the precolonial wars and sensing that the would be defeated completely the agreed to surrender and sign a pact and the British gave them Nigeria.
fearlessness is foolishness. One great instinct for survival is fear, a culture that don't fear will not survive

That is why God will be able to work with Ndigbo to make Africa his kingdom on earth......God cannot do business with cowards! it is this wimpish spirit that has led the north to fritter away immeasurable wealth from this land! That igbo audacity and lack of fear of failing that we need to make headway........

Grandmeister:

So losing 3 million kids in a war that shouldn’t have happened is not enough reason to be angry? I now understand why your ‘leaders’ deal with you animals with iron hand and rod. There’s nothing remotely humane about most Nigerians.

Ok . Na continue to be angry and bitter na. Why didn't you people show your bitterness when the queen was alive. Why didn't you show your anger then or take it somewhere the queen might see it that you are angry. ? What a hypocrisy ?
You are yet to deal with your leaders that are presently dealing with animals like you in your regions making your miserable life despicable everyday and over the years.
Seperior power always take advantage of the lesser. That is just life. There is nothing you can do about it.

Weedcrusher:


Coming from someone that lives in Nigeria and probably never left the shores of the country. ....I encourage you and Uju to try wish a dying stateman an excruciating pain in America and see how Americans would laugh to that joke with guns to your head.

Before you talk about education being dead, try to know the difference between a dying person and a dead person.

We will soon know the man made sect/religion you belong..
Extremism at play

ebufa:



That is why God will be able to work with Ndigbo to make Africa his kingdom on earth......God cannot do business with cowards! it is this wimpish spirit that has led the north to fritter away immeasurable wealth from this land! That igbo audacity and lack of fear of failing that we need to make headway........

Bro even Britain was defeated so many times in history and they had to surrender. surrender is not cowardice. if defeat is unavoidable you surrender to save your children. A dead man is a dead man.
Right from the 18th century the world realised that heroism and bravery does not pay, you must use your sense to survived. And one good survival instinct we have is fear.

Broveens42:



We will soon know the man made sect/religion you belong..
Extremism at play

You can let it rest now local man.

That lesbian should stfu . The clout is enough

compton11:
So Igbos the coons of west Africa need apologies from one of their masters that they always lick their ass?

Well Yoruba also need apologies from Igbos for killing ladoke akintola, and some of our army plus by invading Western region instead of invading their main northern enemies.

I don’t want to reply your dumb ass, but I just have to.
If you want to attack a country, you head to the seat of power to try to bring it down. Once you successfully done that, you’ve taken over the county.
In that that case the seat of power was Lagos. And to get to Lagos you must pass through other southwestern states.
So nobody was attacking Yorubas, they were only heading to the seat of power and we didn’t expect the road to be smooth for them.

Kfed4ril:


I don’t want to reply your dumb ass, but I just have to.
If you want to attack a country, you head to the seat of power to try to bring it down. Once you successfully done that, you’ve taken over the county.
In that that case the seat of power was Lagos. And to get to Lagos you must pass through other southwestern states.
So nobody was attacking Yorubas, they were only heading to the seat of power and we didn’t expect the road to be smooth for them.

u are stupid ass nigga,this ain't about bringing the capital down,it is about fighting war with those that sinned against,what makes u think taking of Lagos will stop hausa/Fulani and the people u killed their people stop fighting u?


It is not attacking and the mid-west people narrated the actrocities the Biafran army committed against them.

gidgiddy:


The blockade effected by Nigeria and Britain led to deaths if many people, Im talking about the aged, women and children. Thats not something anyone forgets in a hurry unless it didnt happen to them.

Then there is this talk about Gowon offering Ojukwu a land corridor so that aid could be delivered to the suffering people, and that Ojukwu turned it down.

A total lie

I posted this about Professor Aluko, a Yoruba man who was both friends to Ojukwu and Gowon, and was heavily involved in trying to reconcile both men throughout the war, in a recent thread that Ojukwu rejected aid coming in through a land corridor

Dr Aluko completely destroyed Goldsteins letter in 2012, it was posted here in the previous thread about this

https://www.nairaland.com/3854388/biafra-war-nigeria-starvation-land

Below is what Dr Aluko said


Dr. Aluko:
It is obfuscation at its most blatant to read
Goldstein letter outside of the rationale for action
taken by Ojukwu and the Biafran leadership.
I'll attempt to answer your earlier questions posed
to me alonsgide this, because they are related.
- The first question was why Ojukwu did not, given
that Biafra had shrunk dramatically, not surrender
to save starving Biafrans.


- The second is, to link it to the substance of
Goldstein's letter, why Ojukwu insisted on ceasefire
and the airlift of relief to Biafrans as the only
grounds or conditions for accepting relief.
First, Ojukwu knew that an internationally observed
ceasefire was the only guarantee for the security
and safety of the Biafran. Second, the atrocities
recorded wherever the federal forces liberated lent
credence to that demand. In fact, it made it
imperative, particularly because the Lagos regime
was not prepared to negotiate in true faith for the
amicable end of the conflict.


The war strategy of the Gowon administration was
hell-bent on Biafra's complete surrender without
guarantees. No political and military leader will
agree to that kind of suicide. I'll return to this
point. But let me quote from Susan Cronje's quite
illuminating book, The World and Nigeria: The
Diplomatic History of the Biafran war 1967-1970
( I'd also recommend that you read the other,
Biafra: Britain's Shame). Cronje writes this about
the meeting in Niamey referenced by Goldstein:
"The Nigerian delegation was led by Chief
Awolowo, but General Gowon arrived in Niamey on
16 July and addressed the meeting as an
'observer.'

The main theme of his speech was a
warning that if the 'rebels persist in their
contemptuous attitude to the conference table the
federal government will have no choice but to take
over the remaining rebel-held areas...In military
terms the rebellion is virtually suppressed already.'
But the atmosphere had suibtly changed. hamani
diori had altrady suggested that the committee's
consultative role should be changed to a mediatory
one, and after Gowon's address the committee
went into closed session. Eventually it was
announced that that Ojukwu had been asked to
attend, and Gowon who had already returned to
Lagos flew back to Niamey the following day,
cancelling all engagements. His presence in
Niamey was required not for a meeting with
Ojukwu but to reply to a truce proposal put forward
among others by General Ankrah. This called for a
ten-mile wide demilitarized zone patrolled by
neutral troops to allow relief supplies to pass to
Biafran refugees. According to one account of the
debate, Gowon is said to have turned to General
Ankrah, saying, 'You are a military man: you know
what it is with commanders.'

The suggestion that
he might be unable to restrain his army was
reinforced when he warned the committee that if it
did not see things his way they would have to have
'a Nigeria without me.' According to a Niamey
radio report the following day, General Gowon
rejected the resolution put to him by the O.A.U.
committee; the main points of this resolution were
the establishment of a demilitarized zone and 'an
international force which would include neutral
observers acceptable to both sides.' Ghana and
Cameroun, the broadcast said, had offered
shipping facilities for moving relief supplies.
Ojukwu arrived in Niamey on 19 July in President
Houphet-Boigny's private jet.

The Biafran
delegation, when it was fully assembled, included
Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, the former Nigerian president,
Dr. Okpara, former Eastern Nigerian premier, Sir
Louis Mbanefo, Dr. Eni Njoku and several other
notables; Lagos was not far off in suggesting that
the 'entire rebel leadership' had assembled in
Niger. At the end of the meeting between Ojukwu
and the consltative committee - Gowon had
returned to Lagos two days previously - a
communique was issued. Two versions appear to
be in existence; the one broadcast by Niamey radio
read:

(1) the Nigerian Federal Military Government
and Colonel Ojukwu have agreed to meet immediately in Niamey under the chairmanship of
President Diori Hamani in order to begin
preliminary talks on a speedy resumption of
Nigerian peace negotiations;

(2) the Nigerian
Federal Military Government and Colonel Ojukwu
have agreed to resume as soon as possible peace
negotiations in Addis Ababa under the auspices of
the O.A.U Consultative Committee on Nigeria.' The
version as broadcast by Lagos - and which does
not pretend to be a verbatim report - said that the
committee had called on both parties to resume
peace talks as soon as possible, '... with the
objecvtive of preserving Nigeria's territiorial
integrity and guaranteeing the security of all its
inhabitants.' The committee said, according to this
broadcast, that 'it will be in contact with the federal
military government, and Ojukwu or his
representativs may at any time contact any
member government of the committee.' The Lagos
version went on to cite two further point of which
ther was no mention in the Niamey version, both
dealing with relief, and appealing to the two sides
to undertake various mesures to alleviate the
suffering among war victims.


In view of the strong criticism that has been
levelled at the Biafran leadership for its
intrasigence, and the high praise heaped o General
Gowon and his Government for humanitarian
concern and magnanimity, it should be stressed
that in Niamey Gowon rejected the O.A.U
proposals for a partial truce and international
policing of relief routes, while Ojukwu was
prepared to accept both these proposals. When
Ojukwu returned to Biafra, he gave a press
conference at which he was asked whether his
invitation to the OAU had meant any form of
recognition of him. For once Ojukwu was cautious
in his reply: 'Let's put it this way. My presence in
Niamey for once represents the O.A.U's acceptance
that there are two sides to a conflict.' He would not
reveal any further details about the forthcoming
Addis Ababa peace talk, but said, 'I find myself in
a rather simillar situation as after Aburi.' He did
not want to say anything in case Lagos started
'interpreting it, and go back to square
one..." (302-303)

The foregoing provides the clear context of the
situation, that it was not Ojukwu, but Gowon who
rejected the proposals by which Ojukwu and the
Biafran leadership was prepared to abide.The
context is clearly established and makes nonsense
of Golsdstein's ground for resignation.

While the Biafran government was prepared to act
without precondition, the Nigerian authorities
persistenly insisted on Biafran surrender. It was a
deliberate and determined argument made to make
certain that the only solution was by a military
solution because Lagos knew that the basic
grounds on which it made its offer of relief was
conditional and unconscionable.

It was to disavow
the very basic reason why Biafra defended itself in
the first place: its sovereignty as a means to the
safety, security and dignity of its population. Now,
were the Gowon administration acting in good
faith, that would be a differet matter. What
guaratees could Biafrans have, had Ojukwu
surrendered as a condition for food? None.
Here is the evidence narrated by John Stremlau in
his The International Politics of the Nigerian Civil
War how Gowon's cable upturned the agreements
reached in May 1968 in kampala between Eni
Njoku and Enahoro in which Eni Njoku had in fact
"conceded the evntuality of one-Nigeria."

As Stremalau notes, "Whereas Enahoro had left
acceptance of the twelve-state structure implicit
in his propsals, Gowon insisted that before any
agreement was reached the rebels must explictly
embrace the twelve states. In addition, Gowon
stipulated that there would be no question of an
interim commission for the rebel-held areas, there
would be no recruitment and formation of Ibo
units into the federal armed forces, and no
elements of the rebel troops or police would be
allowed to retain their arms. Gowon's instruction,
which did not reach Kampala until shortly after
Enahoro had made his presentation, clearly
reflected the views of the more hawkish elements
in the federal government" (172-173).


To put these in summary:
(a) Ojukwu did not reject relief, he wanted the
security and guarantee of safety for Biafrans. He
was in fact willing to accept the O.A.U's proposals

(b) Gowon and the Lagos administration
manipulated international propaganda, as testified
in the versions of the broadcasts of the Niamey
agreement to further its own goals of the
liquidation of Biafra

(c) The federal government was not, in spite of all
the efforts made by the Biafrans willing to
negotiate peace, they were hell-bent on
"surrender" as the only condition for the survival
of the Biafran population.

If anybody must bear responsbility, it must be
those who kept using the talks to elongate the
suffering of the civilian population, and clearly this
are the 'hawks" who placed the only condition for
peace on Biafra's surrender and liquidation. And
there, you have it.

Stop writing Epistles, the war wasn't between Gowon and Ojukwu. It was a Nigerian Affairs that transcended beyond these two individuals.


The Federal Military Government offered a safe landed Corridor for movement of relief materials subject to 100% by the Nigerian Security Agencies. The Biafran authority who were smuggling weapons desguised as relief materials rejected this offer.


What efforts did Biafra made to grow foods for their people during the war?
Where were the Biafran soldiers getting their own foods from?

Why prolonging the war when your people were dying and using images of starving children and women to appeal for donations and recognitions all over the world?


Didn't you ask for the Food Storages before the unilateral declaration of secession which is an act of war all over the world?



In any case, going to war and basing your survival on the magnanimity and cooperation of your opponents is a poor sense of judgement and might as well be considered an act of suicide.

Without that blockade , the senseless destruction of lives and properties would have persisted for upto 10years.

compton11:
u are stupid ass nigga,this ain't about bringing the capital down,it is about fighting war with those that sinned against,what makes u think taking of Lagos will stop hausa/Fulani and the people u killed their people stop fighting u?


It is not attacking and the mid-west people narrated the actrocities the Biafran army committed against them.

You alway keep on confirming to me that you are dumber than I thought.
When you are fighting a country, you attack the seat of power, if terrorist want to bring down American, they attack the White House.
The Biafran soldiers were marching to Lagos, and you must pass other mid west and southwestern state.

Anigreat:




I really love the great Igbo tribe even though I am not Igbo. Even in the face of oppression the fear no one, they speak their mind and fear no idiot. Infact it's this inherent behavioral disposition of fearlessness constantly and consistently displayed by them that I believe the saying that goes thus: "Igbo man bows for no one except his chi"

This fearless trait is not only found in their men but also their women. Aba women riot of 1929 came to mind were Ikonnia,Nwannedia and Nwugo, beautiful Igbo women lead the protest successfully, and recently the case of Uju and the queen is a clear study of what their women is made of. God bless them.

Don't think that Igbo men will run away from their ancestral land to Benin republic or Cote D'Ivoire, they fight bravely and die as warriors..while others run and still die as cowards.

You are a real table shaker

Kfed4ril:


You alway keep on confirming to me that you are dumber than I thought.
When you are fighting a country, you attack the seat of power, if terrorist want to bring down American, they attack the White House.
The Biafran soldiers were marching to Lagos, and you must pass other mid west and southwestern state.

passing mid West by massacring them and raped their women, right?

Truthdeypain:


You are actually super stupid. And you reason like a shit eating slowpoke.

Is she angry at Nigerians, just imagine the daft questions you are asking, when a woman explained herself to pieces.

As for me I am happy at Nigerians for constantly denying burying distorting twisting and falsifying historical certainties. I am happy for having people who do not understand the plan and torture our parents and grandparents went through make statement like this. " Awolowo should have sacrificed more of those bastard kwashiokor babies" those mockeries are even being made on these threads. Those are hate speeches those things are being mad eon twitter do you know you cannot say such stuff about the RWANDAN GENOCIDE or the Holocaust.

So you are telling me that this woman shouldn't be angry. There is no human being with a heart who has watched or followed the civil war and documentaries and has not been reduced to tears. It is only you devilish children of hate and Genocide who have the spirits of AWOLOWO and Ahmadu Bello inside of you who express emotions differently (on favour of the (GENOCIDERS) Keep deceiving your useless self.

We are talking about GENOCIDE, STARVATION, WAR CRIMES you go go dey here dey talk rubbish, person dey traumatized, una go still dey ask useless questions. There's no point trying to explain anything to you. For the fact you fit dey dismiss that tangible explanation that women gave shows you are as useless and stupid as the rest of the idiots in this forum if not more.

Children of the devil and Genocide.

There is an overwhelming feeling of hatred and superiority towards Ndigbo in Nigeria, and it’s coming primarily from the south-west and muslim core north! This negative sentiment make those feeling and expressing it to take leave of their senses and suspend their sense of fairness and justice! Those of them reading this may well say Ndigbo feel likewise towards them, and though this assertion is false and isn’t supported by facts on the ground, nevertheless they are entitled to their opinion as i’m sure they’ll say i’m entitled to mine!

However, the aforementioned then begs the question why TF we’re still sharing the same country….pretending to ‘like’ ourselves when in fact our relationship is fraught with mutual suspicion and bile! We pretend to be a nation…spouting meaningless platitudes, words and phrases like ‘united’….’one Nigeria’….etc! There’s a lot of deceit and pretence going on in Nigeria, and this is why we can’t and will NEVER get over this annoying blame-game!

Why is it only Ndigbo who have read the handwriting on the wall and decided things just can’t continue like this!? So far, it’s mainly us who have called for a referendum on secession….and for this, the ruling Fulani hegemony have turned their murderous forces (both state and non-state) on us! They have equally murdered Yoruba Oduduwa agitators, but their losses are much less in comparison to what Ndigbo have lost in the name of ‘one Nigeria’….and their agitation doesn’t seem to be as threatening to the evil hegemony as that of Ndigbo/Biafra is!

Has anyone ever wondered why South Africa and Rwanda seem to have done better in building a cohesive and progressive nation than Nigeria has? It’s because they addressed nation-building and other thorny national issues confronting them frontally, and didn’t sweep them under the carpet…pretending everything is ok!

The mere fact Uju Anya has voiced anger over unresolved issues that confronted her parents generation more than half a century ago (supported to varying degrees by other Igbo and people of good conscience) , should be a good indicator to those piloting the affairs of this country….and those apostles of ‘one Nigeria’, that things are not right with their efforts at building a true nation! Presently, what we have as Nigeria is just a contraption….a mere hotchpotch of nations, most of whom would much rather be on their own or form a true nation with other likeminded groups!