₦airaland Forum

pazienza: Dumb question.

You don't have to waste your bandwidth on such comments. You can see that I ignored his question.

pcicero: Dear Mr Achebe, why did you wait till when almost all the principal actors have died before writing your piece of rubbish

Why do you Igbos always believe that you are better than others?

Why have you, through your writings, developed a myth that igbos are progenitors of fearsome warriors, yet there is no historical record that you were neither organised politically or socially nor able to dominate any other group outside your enclave?

Brother, you are making no sense. Can you point to any allegation in the excerpt that was not levelled against Awolowo when he was alive?
I'm well aware that your emotion is guiding your reasoning. But can you pause, think and come up with a credible defence to dismantle professor Achebe's remarks bit by bit? Instead of scratching the surface with your unrelated comments.
Can you specifically respond to Awolowo's comment like:

1. All is fair in a war

2. Justification of starvation policy

3. 20 pounds policy

4. Indigenization policy

These were the issues raised by professor Achebe. Even Awolowo struggled to defend those allegations when he was alive. If your dear leader could not absolve himself of any blame, who are you to defend him? Awolowo was part and parcel of those disgraceful policies and you guys should be ashamed of that. Instead of doubling down with your ludicrous defence.

This act did not surprise me! It wont surprise any close observer of Yoruba politics either. Yorubas have perfected this act. Can you imagine Tinubu in his capacity as the party leader having a parley with GEJ(a flag bearer of rival party) during the election? I felt sorry for Ribadu. I pity anyone who is considering going into an alliance with Yoruba regional party. This is a warning to Buhari. Yoruba treachery is legendary! They've done it before; they can do it again!

1. Awolowo backstabbed Akintola. Made every effort to marginalize his deputy.

2. Obasanjo boasted of voting against Awolowo in the presidential election. Worked against the emergence of his kisman as the president.

3. Abiola backstabbed Awolowo and worked against him. Even though he benefitted from Awolowo's free education.

4. Yorubas pressured Abacha to deal with Abiola. They later took bribe from the dictator.

5. No Yoruba was with Abiola when he declared himself president.

6. Now, they've used Ribadu as a pawn in their game of treachery.

Prof Corruption: [s]
This is the most ridiculous garbage I have read on Nigerian-Biafran civil war. So Awolowo should be in Gowon's government and be fighting for the interests of Biafra? What would he gain, what would his people gain, what would Nigeria gain by promoting Biafra interests in Gowon administration? Had Biafra succeeded in breaking away, would this same professor not making mockery of Awolowo today that despite his intellectual tallness, Nigeria could not defeat Biafra? Whose interests exactly should Awolowo have fought for in Gowon's administration?

You won't blame your leaders that brought war upon your head but found it convenient to blame someone who had nothing to do with your misery. If you were doing fine, the dominant group in Nigeria, getting the best in Nigeria, why did you instigate the first coup? You sons killed leaders of other regions sparing yours but you did not cry foul, you did not secede, you did not cry genocide. But what happened when the macabre music was played for Igbos to dance? When Ironsi was assassinated? The whole North was demonised-Hausa did this , Fulani did that but you found it entirely convenient to ignore who fomented the trouble, who precipitated the entire scenario, you would rather blame others than blame you sons who started it all. You will always hear them talk of pogrom in the North but never mention what caused the pogrom.

Even when your so much revered Ojukwu continued in his empty arrogance, the strongest army in Black Africa nonsense, leaders of thought, opinion moulders cautioned him against rushing to war. This same Awolowo that was said to be hungry for power was part of a mission to persuade Ojukwu to shelve any idea of war. Ojukwu ignored it. He ignored all voice of reason and went to a lost war before it even started. Instead of blaming your leaders, of course the man to blame was Awolowo who instituted the policy of starvation as weapon of war as if there was something wrong with that. I don't know and I am not aware of any law that says you should feed your enemy during a raging war but our brave brothers who are not cowards like the Yorubas would continue to demonise Awolowo for that as if he was a spy that should be advancing their interests in Gowon government. How ridiculous?

The question I ask you folks is if Awolowo deliberately instituted the policy so what? Did he declare secession for Igbo? Did Nigeria constitution permit secession? Who plunged Igbo into to an unplanned war- a war that was not winnable in probability and reality? If you were dominant and was his envy, why did you give yourselves to him to prey on on the platter of gold? Why did you present him the opportunity when the same devil even cautioned you against war? Don't blame Ojukwu, Awolowo-the evil one-is the one to blame.

Achebe is bitter because Awolowo was the brain behind the defeat of Biafra. It has nothing to do with tribalism. It has nothing to do with starvation nonsense he's ranting about. Are we not living in the same world where nuclear weapons was used to obliterate a whole city and somebody is talking of starvation? are we not living in a world where a country was invaded, millions killed and infrastructure destroyed on a patently false intelligence and the world is yet to end? Some of these our professors are jokes. By the way, is Achebe now claiming to be a nationalist or not also advancing the interest of Igbo people the very same concept he seems to be criticizing Awolowo for? Wonders they say shall never end. Rant on professor, we are all ears! What else did Awolowo do to destroy Igbo?[/s]

Nonsense! Why is this forum filled with ignorant fellows?

Katsumoto: [s]
To add to that, why did they not surrender when they knew they couldn't feed their citizens?

A biafra officer told St. Jorre that if offered milk for starving kids and arms, they would choose arms. So if the Biafrans who were seeing innocent kids dying daily from starvation, didn't care about them, how were they expecting their enemies who were hundreds of miles away to be moved by the deaths?

An unemployed man feeds fat from donations from friendly neighbours while his kids starve to death. He collects toll fees from the neighbours who bring food for his kids. He uses the funds to fight his landlord in court because he doesnt want to pay rent. When his kids die, he accuses his landlord of starvation. Who should have provided for the kids? The father or the landlord?[/s]

Another bullshyt

[quote author=ekt_bear]Hold on a second, my confused friend ACM10.

You are citing a law associated with the International Criminal Court, an organization that did not exist until after 2000.

So, even assuming that your interpretation is correct, are you really judging a war in the late 1960s using laws from 2000+?

This is why I asked you to cite your reference well...I was pretty sure that you'd be full of crap.[/quote][quote author=ekt_bear]Err. Any responses to the posts from page 7? In particular, why you are using a law and court from the year 2000+ to condemn actions that occurred in the 1960s?[/quote]I'm tired of your hide-n-seek style of debate. You have been making ignorant assertions and you expect me to prove you wrong. I think the onus is on you to prove your assertion. You cannot tell me that starvation is not a war crime and expect me to prove that it is a war crime. If you continue in this fashion, I might be forced to ignore you.

Section B. Sieges that cause
starvation
I. Treaties
Geneva Convention IV
Article 23 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV
provides:
Each High Contracting Party shall allow the
free passage of all consignments of medical
and hospital stores and objects necessary
for religious worship intended only for
civilians of another High Contracting Party,
even if the latter is its adversary. It shall
likewise permit the free passage of all
consignments of essential foodstuffs,
clothing and tonics intended for children
under fifteen, expectant mothers and
maternity cases.
The obligation of a High Contracting Party to
allow the free passage of the consignments
indicated in the preceding paragraph is
subject to the condition that this Party is
satisfied that there are no serious reasons
for fearing:
(a) that the consignments may be diverted
from their destination,
(b) that the control may not be effective, or
(c) that a definite advantage may accrue to
the military efforts or economy of the
enemy through the substitution of the
above-mentioned consignments for goods
which would otherwise be provided or
produced by the enemy or through the
release of such material, services or facilities
as would otherwise be required for the
production of such goods.
The Power which allows the passage of the
consignments indicated in the first
paragraph of this Article may make such
permission conditional on the distribution
to the persons benefited thereby being
made under the local supervision of the
Protecting Powers.
Such consignments shall be forwarded as
rapidly as possible, and the Power which
permits their free passage shall have the
right to prescribe the technical
arrangements under which such passage is
allowed.
Back to top
II. Other Instruments
Lieber Code
Article 18 of the 1863 Lieber Code provides:
When a commander of a besieged place
expels the noncombatants, in order to
lessen the number of those who consume
his stock of provisions, it is lawful, though
an extreme measure, to drive them back, so
as to hasten on the surrender.

www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule53

[quote author=ekt_bear]Then doesn't it follow that ANY blockade which also blocks the flow of food is a war crime?

Yet, there have been many total blockades over the past 50 years in history. Is your claim then that all of those blockades were war crimes?

If so, then Nigeria is in good company.[/quote]Mention the instances of total blockade that did not allow food, medicine and relief materials to seep in. The perpetrators in Bosnia-Herzegovia are cooling off in Hague.

[quote author=ekt_bear]Your response wasn't good enough, is my point. Do you not get that? The answer to my question is, "there is no way to ensure that the food you give to the civilians doesn't end up feeding military.



Why would I name the book, when I mentioned its author? He only has one book on the Nigerian civil war (though it was republished again under a different name).

Should I also mention the color of my book, the font used to print the title, etc?

Anyway......more to the point, name these villages and towns you and @realchange claim that Gowon was killing and genociding on the Biafra border before your declaration of independence.....[/quote]There was skirmishes at the border town of Nsukka, later Gakem

Katsumoto: Mr Achebe

Who told you that the Igbos were the dominant group in Nigeria? Why do Igbo sons ascribe to themselves labels such as dominant, most successful, most traveled, responsible for most growth, etc? This is not any different from Ojukwu's 'we possess the largest army in Black Africa' and then proceeded to serve his ass on a plate for some whooping.

Empty barrels make the most noise.

I guess dominance comes from joining another in a coalition against a third group.

Soon you will tell us that you were not awarded a Nobel prize because your group is 'dominant'.

Many authors and politicians of that era had attested to Ndigbo domination of virtually all aspect of Nigerians lives prior to the civil war. Your opinion remains private whether it is borne out of bigotry or objectivity; you are entitled to it. One of the reasons for the countercoup was the fear of Igbo domination. I'm surprised that you are disputing this fact.

Katsumoto: Mr Achebe

Why did you conveniently forget that Biafra charged landing fees in foreign currency to charities who were bringing in free food for starving children? Linda Polman's The Crisis Caravan: What’s wrong with humanitarian aid, laid bare into this. If you refuse to believe a foreigner, what about Ntieyong Akpan, secretary to the Eastern government, who wrote in his book, "The Struggle For Succession", that they were unaware that Biafra was charging charities landing fees.

I've challenged you to provide:
1. Name(s) of the aid agency involved
2. Evidence that this event took place.
You only mentioned two obscure aid agencies. Your proof did not go far enough and you knows that. I can understand that you are desperate to hold on to any evidence to describe the activities of the Biafran troops with an unflattering terms. Sorry, can you try harder?

Why did you forget that Gowon insisted on searching food supplies because Biafra was smuggling weapons in with food?

Does Gowon need the permission of Ojukwu to search the shipments to Biafra? Was it not his troops that were manning the check points?

Why did Biafra insist on receiving food supplies at night because it wanted to smuggle weapons in?

What prevents the Nigerian troops from searching the shipments in the dark? Were they so undisciplined that they cannot keep awake at night in the battlefield?

Can you tell us of a conflict in which a side which couldn't feed itself wanted to fight an enemy that has you surrounded on all sides?

Do you know about the siege of Stalingrad? Do you know that Julius Caesar once found himself in this situation when he was surrounded in the midst of a siege. There are many instances in history. Fighters surrenders when you defeats their will to fight, not when you kills off their civilians.

BTW, how does your incoherent remarks relate to what was written by professor Achebe? I hate it when you attach emotion to debate.

T9ksy: Yeah like you have produce a credible evidence of the 1951 election result which you and your fellow ibo revisionist still

insist that the NCNC, won. We are still waiting for you to visit the library in your grandmother's village which you claimed house the evidence.

Until then, i think it's you who should just STFU!

Talk about a POT calling a KETTLE, black!!

Actually I read about carpet-crossing as an excerpt from a book written by Mathew Mbu, a prominent member of the NCNC and Zik's companion. I lost someone who would have shed more light on that event two years ago. But I'm hoping to put the question across to any of the participants in the politics of AG vs NCNC whenever I have an audience with them. So you have to exercise patience.

Katsumoto: Quit being an annoying pedant. You were expecting a Northerner to go to Enugu? ? ? If Ojukwu couldn't go to Lagos, let alone Kano/Kaduna, why are you expecting a Northerner to go to Enugu? Please use your brain.

Remember that Ojukwu sent delegates to a Conference held in Lagos and Benin. They refused to travel to Benin when negotiation came to a deadlock. Their safety will not be guaranteed if they attend. So they stayed back. Besides, Gowon cannot be trusted because he had failed to honour his pledge on many occasions.

Katsumoto: Ojukwu went to war because Gowon refused to implement the only provision from Aburi which would removed the power to appoint the Eastern governor from the head of state. Basically, Gowon wouldn't have been able to replace Ojukwu and Ojukwu knew that as soon as agreements are in place, he would have been replaced.

Did the East need to secede to safeguard Eastern lives? They just needed to remain in their region. The war wasn't prosecuted to rescue Easterners that were trapped outside the East.

Why was Gowon engaging in the mass recruitment of soldiers? Was he anticipating an invasion by Ghana or Cameroon? You are just insincere. Remember that this took place while he engaged in talks for peaceful settlement. He increased Nigeria's defense spending by a thousand fold. Scouting round the world to procure the latest military hardware.
Mention any country that can truly protect its citizens anywhere they stays. Can you raise an objection on the excerpt from Prof. Achebe's memoir? This is what we should be debating here.

Katsumoto: Yes, Gowon created states to undermine ojukwu but that was after ojukwu refused to accept decree 8 because it would have meant that ojukwu could be replaced by Gowon.


Is ojukwu a Hero or a Villain? by Max Siollun

January is a key month in Nigeria’s history. This January marks the 41st anniversary of the end of the Nigerian civil war, and the 44th anniversary of the Aburi accords – the debate in Aburi in Ghana which nearly pre-empted the war. The pivotal figure in both events is Chukwuemeka Odumegwu ojukwu.

ojukwu is a man that evokes conflicting emotions. To some he is a born leader and a hero. To others he is an ambitious man that tried to break up his country. Where ojukwu is concerned, no one is a neutral. The conflicting opinions on him are emblematic of his inconsistent personality and history. ojukwu is an educated man that entered a profession that many Nigerians regarded at the time as a profession for the uneducated. He is a southerner born in the north who fought a three year long war against the north. He is a man who once led an attempt to secede from Nigeria, but later ran for President of Nigeria.

A leader must be judged by what benefits or misfortune he has brought to his people. Has ojukwu brought anything positive to his people? His record is grim. The “accomplishments” ojukwu has brought his people include:

• Leading them in a brutal civil war they had no chance of winning, and which resulted in a million of them dying.
• Even when it became clear that his people were starving to death in massive numbers, he continued the war which was doomed from the start.
• He fled and left his people after the war.
• The civil war caused his people to be stereotyped as disloyal and led to an unwritten discrimination against them.


Yet he is still revered. ojukwu’s first official involvement in politics came after a group of young army Majors overthrew the democratic government in January 1966. Contrary to what has been written in some quarters, ojukwu refused to cooperate with the Majors – including Major Nzeogwu. ojukwu was appointed the Military Governor of the Eastern Region after the coup. This appointment was ironic as he had spent very little of his life in the east. ojukwu was the most politically active of the four military governors. By mid-1966 the army was imploding and another army coup was staged by northern soldiers during which hundreds of Igbo soldiers (including Ironsi) were killed. A central plank of this coup was the elimination of ojukwu. The ‘pointman’ who was to execute the coup in the eastern region was a young Lieutenant named Shehu Musa Yar’Adua (the older brother of Nigeria’s former President).

Aburi – ojukwu’s Finest Hour

After being dragged to the brink of an abyss by two military coups in 1966, and pogroms which followed them, ojukwu had refused to attend any meetings of the Supreme Military Council until the Ghanaian leader Lt-General Joseph Ankrah brokered a meeting in the neutral territory of Aburi in Ghana in January 1967. This was ojukwu’s finest hour. ojukwu prepared thoroughly and came armed with notes and secretaries. He managed to secure an agreement to devolve power from the federal government to the regions. This turned Nigeria into a confederation. In the words of one writer ojukwu “secured the signatures of the SMC to documents which would have had the effect of turning Nigeria into little more than a customs union".

The federal government attempted to implement the Aburi agreement in diluted form by enacting a modified Constitution (Suspension and Modification) decree (decree cool which turned Nigeria into a de facto confederation, but which did not incorporate ALL of the agreements reached at Aburi. Federal civil servants argued that to implement all of the Aburi agreements would lead to the dissolution of the federation. ojukwu declined to accept the initial draft of the decree and insisted on a full and complete implementation of the Aburi accords.

As the weaker party, could ojukwu still have showed greater pragmatism to spare further suffering for his people? Even with its flaws, decree 8 gave him 90% of what he wanted. The U.S. State Department was “impressed by extent to which decree 8 appears to meet many of East's fundamental demands for much greater regional autonomy. While recognizing that it stops short of granting everything ojukwu wants, Dept. considers decree represents genuine effort by FMG and other Mil Govs to implement Aburi agreements and to retain Nigerian unity in form which least objectionable to East…..Consulate Enugu has reported that some prominent and moderate Easterners may incline toward above view".

WINNER TAKES ALL – NIGERIA’S MALAISE

In the “winner takes all” mentality that is so symptomatic of Nigerian politics, ojukwu unrealistically held out for 100% of his demands and in the end, received 0%. His refusal to be tactically flexible by considering options other than secession, placed him and his people in a worse position than they started in. Rather than turning Nigeria into a confederation (which is what decree 8 did), ojukwu’s give no inch stance gave the federal government an opportunity to overrun the Eastern Region, carve the country into several states and concentrate massive powers in the central government. Forty years later many Nigerians now call for the restructuring of Nigeria, and for devolution of power to its regions. The opportunity to achieve this was squandered 45 years ago at Aburi.

Could ojukwu have achieved his objectives – albeit at a later date, had he been more patient? The old adage is that “the best comes to those who wait”. Could he have accepted confederation in the short-term, then waited patiently until such time that the Eastern Region had enough weapons and infrastructure to sustain a fully independent state in the future?

http://www.pointblanknews.com/Special_Reports/os4390.html

Mr. you are spamming this thread with your usual bullshyt. Can't you stay focused on the message?

[quote author=reporter?]This issue has been trashed out many times over here on NL. You can dig up the threads if you have the time.

Didn't Ojuwku boast about having the largest army in black Africa? Didn't he satate that the only plcace he would meet Nigeria was
at the war front? Do those statements not sound like a man who wanted war?

About Awo warning him, you should read the transcript of the meeting b/w Awo and Ojukwu.

War is war; and bad things happen during war.[/quote]I hate lazy debaters. Can you present a credible evidence or shut up?

Katsumoto: You can read Soyinka's "You Must Set Forth At Dawn".


Here is the true account of what took place as taken from scripts of the discussion between Papa and Chief Ojukwu (the Ikemba). The discussion was taped by the Ikemba and the recorder was captured after Enugu fell.

On Saturday, May 6, 1967, at 5.15 pm, a meeting began to take place, at the State House, Enugu, between the then Excellency, Lt. Col. Odumegwu Ojukwu (the Ikemba) and a delegation of the National Conciliation Committee (Committee) led by the most Honorable Chief Obafemi Awolowo. The Committee was represented by Professor Samuel Aluko, Chief Mariere, Chief J.I. Onyia, while the Eastern Region was represented by Lt. Col Imo, Lt. Col Effiong, Lt. Col. Kurubo, Mr. C.O Mojekwu, Mr. N.U. Akpan, Professor Eni Njoku, Dr. Nwakanma Okoro, Dr. P.N.C. Okigbo, Mr. C.A. Onyegbale and Mr. Ndem with the Ikemba presiding over the meeting. The names are listed for the purpose of verification of facts presented herein below with those of them who may still be alive,

Papa: The main concern of these delegates is to ensure that Nigeria does not disintegrate, and I would like to see Nigeria bound together by any bond because it is better than breaking the whole place up because each unit will be the loser for it. Th[b]e economy of the country is so integrated that it is too late in the day to try and sever them without risking the death of one or both of them. So we have come, therefore, to appeal to you to let Eastern representatives attend the meeting of the Committee (ON-GOING NATIONAL CONCILIATION MEETING) I do not want to put myself in a position where I will be treated as an advocate of the Eastern cause. Let the Eastern delegates go there, make their case and then as a member of the Committee I will get up and say I support this entirely. If at the meeting the East and West present what they want for a new Nigeria whether temporarily or permanently, and the North says "no, we are not going to have it", I will go out and address a World Press Conference and send our case to that body and say this is what we have done and the North has turned it down.[/b] I will then take any step that is necessary to bring into effect what we want. The North needed to be in a position of being presented with the United front of the South.

Ikemba: I started off this struggle in July with 120 rifles to defend the entirety of the East. I took my stand knowing fully well that by doing so, whilst carving my name in history,[size=16pt][/size] I was signing also my death warrant. But I took it because I believe that this stand is vital to the survival of the South. I appealed for settlement quietly because I understood that this was a unclothed struggle for power and that the only time we can sit down and decide the future of Nigeria on basis of equality will always be equality of arms[b]. Quietly, I built up. If you do not know it, I am proud, and my officers are proud, that here in the East we possess the biggest army in Black Africa.[/b] I am no longer speaking as an underdog, I am speaking from a position of power. [SEE NOTE 3a] The only way for the South to present a united front is for the South to meet and hammer out that united front. It is a point which must be cleared first before proceeding to make a statement of whatever it is. That is why to my mind, at the present stage of the crisis the ideal thing is for the Southern people to meet in any platform and discuss and hammer out any difference they might have because I will have nothing to do with the North. Then going further, it would then mean that to do this the South to meet; because if we wait for their permission, we will wait for ever. On the specific question of whether there is a possibility of contact with the North, the answer is at the battle field.[size=26pt][/size]

Pls don't bore me with another propaganda material. Do you still remember Ojukwu's letter to Col. Banjo? Or Ojukwu's letter to Awolowo? You know that I wont believe any document that is not proven to be authentic. This bullshyt does not go far enough. I'm still waiting for your evidence of Awolowo's advice to Ojukwu.

Katsumoto: So Ojukwu was a genius because he wanted to secede, whether rightly or wrongly, in 1967 after the pogroms in 1966!!!!!

But was he a genius when he stated openly that the Igbo would export civil servants to the rest of Nigeria after Ironsi promulgated decree 34, 'blessing' Nigeria with a unitary system of government and after Ironsi simultaneously cancelled tests in Hausa to give Igbo civil servants an advantage?

Why did Ojukwu not caution Ironsi against that like Gowon, Ekpo, and Katsina did? Why didn't Ojukwu say, 'my General, this unitary system of government will lead to chaos'? But no, they all saw the opportunities in front of them after benefiting from a coup executed by Igbo sons.

Must you apply your diversionary tactics on every thread? This is getting old and tired. I will meet you on any thread for Decree 34 which enshrined unitary system of government. Whose sole aim was to eliminate tribalism, nepotism which was associated with regionalism. Mind you that every succeeding government embraced the much taunted decree

N105 billion suit against the federal government for failing to protect them from post-election onslaught? Hmmm. There was a pogrom that took place in the north in 1966. Let's calculate the price tag of the victims suit.

838 deaths = N105,000,000,000 (Post election deaths)

30,000 deaths = X (Pre-Biafran war pogrom)

Solution:

X = 30000 x 105000000000 / 838

X = (Can someone do the calculation for us?)

hmmm. . . Brb

[quote author=reporter?]Only a fool will embark on a war and expects to be fed by his enemy. I do not expect Achebe to apportion blame to Ojukwu and his incompetent
generals since he was an ambassador for Biafra.

1. The truth is that Ojukwu was hell bent on going to war, there was nothing anyone could do to dissuade him.



2. Awolowo warned him against going to war,

but he was filled with too much testerone to listen to the old sage.

Why Biafrans cannot comprehend this simple fact is beyone me.[/quote]Pls can you provide evidence for your first and second assertion? I'm waiting . . .

van bonattel: An argument based on established facts can never be lost. The fact that you guys lose your reasons whenever you hear anything ibo will never change anything. Awolowo was described by an erudite professor for what he is, in fact, the Achebe I know is only being diplomatic with that comment back there. A more blunt person would have put it as it is, Awolowo was a tribalistic lunatic, period.

Thank you my brother! Achebe is a born diplomat. I can sense that he made a conscious effort to avoid describing Awolowo with an unflattering term. What Achebe wrote in his memoir is not new to us. My problem is that some segment of Nigerians refused to accept that Awo was an overly ambitious politician who had no shred of decency.

[quote author=ekt_bear]I will even find a quote justifying this when I get home and have my civil books handy. Don't worry.[/quote]Pls do! Your ignorance on this topic is so glaring.

If one claims that X is illegal, shouldn't you at least know what the law says about X? I.e., which law discusses X? Otherwise, why should I believe you?

Article 8 (2) (b) (xxv)
War crime of starvation as a method of
warfare
Elements
1. The
perpetrator
deprived civilians
of objects
indispensable to
their survival.
2. The
perpetrator
intended to starve
civilians as a
method of warfare.
3. The conduct
took place in the
context of and was
associated with an
international armed
conflict.
4. The
perpetrator was
aware of factual
circumstances that
established the
existence of an
armed conflict.

www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/iccelementsofcrimes.html

[quote author=ekt_bear]Indeed, the process "ain't perfect", as you say. Now, how does one ensure that 90%+ of the material doesn't end up in the hand of military? What prevents this from happening?[/quote]I've responded to this question already. I get bored with mindless repetition.

I haven't read 5 books. The primary resource I used was the John de St. Jorre book.

I was expecting you to name this book. Mr, you are still ignorant on this topic. Widen your scope.

[quote author=ekt_bear]Gowon offered this option, but Ojukwu refused to agree to this policy, claiming that Nigeria would somehow sabatoge said food. I'll see if I can find a citation for this.[/quote]It's ok to justify your position, but it's unfair to justify it with false assumption. Does Gowon need Ojukwu's permission before searching any shipment to Biafra? Gowon already controls the entry point, so the argument of "permision" is plain ludicrous, if not silly.

I would expect a man as non-dull as you to do the legwork and back up your claim with facts (i.e. a quote), so we can verify that you are interpreting the law correctly. Do you not get my point?

Are you really serious? How many international conventions can you recite?

I.e., a blockade of everything. Nothing allowed to come in and out. If one does such, is this the same as a starvation policy?

How was the blockade of everything different from deliberate policy of starvation?

[quote author=ekt_bear]How does one ensure that this food, medicine, etc will go to civilians, rather than military?

Have Ojukwu promise, and simply take him at his word?[/quote]This can be easily worked out between the aid agency and the side that placed the blockade. There are some areas that were mapped out as "no fire" zone where civilians can come, be identified and receive food, medicine and relief materials. Though the process aint perfect. Some eventually ends up in the hands of the fighters. But this is not enough reason to starve civilians

[quote author=ekt_bear]Well, the books I have read make no mention of invasion and genocide of Eastern border towns prior to the declaration of independence.

My suspicion is that you and realchange simply are mistaken.[/quote]Can you list 5 books on this topic that you've read so far?

[quote author=ekt_bear]Agreed. But, given that the same ships/planes/etc that carry weapons can also carry food, it seems that 95%+ of blockades in history must also have prevented food from entering, yes?[/quote]Those ships and aircraft are searched before the are allowed to proceed to the enemies territory. Preventing relief materials, food and drugs after thorough search was a deliberate policy.

You said "war crime." So presumably you mean according to some sort of UN conventions. Which one, specifically?

I've told you already that you boring me with your dullness. How on earth would you expect me to memorize the exact international convention which outlawed starvation as a weapon of war?

Is a general blockade the same as a starvation policy? Again, how does one implement a blockade while letting food through?

Sorry can you elaborate on the term "general blockade"? This is serious!

[quote author=ekt_bear]Ah, but let us first establish that this threat existed.[/quote]What other excuse do you need to establish that the threat existed other than the massacre of 30,000 civilians twice in a space of three months?

So in short, Ojukwu seceded because even prior to secession, Gowon was skirmishing with Ojukwu's forces and/or killing innocent civilians. Possibly even genociding them, according to realchange.

So, Ojukwu's secession was a direct response to enemy soldiers sitting right on his border and already invading.

Is this your version of what happened, and why he secceeded? Yes, or no?

Pls pick some book and read this topic. You are boring me with your dullness.

My typical strategy for dealing with slow individuals is to repeat the same idea using different, simpler words, in the hope that they will understand.

I think that you are the one who is slow. Your comment are laced with repetitions even after I've attended to it.

[quote author=ekt_bear]So I take it you won't answer questions (a) and (b).

Nor will you provide a quote from the Geneva convention condemning blockades in civil wars, I take it.

Anyone else who can answer (a) or (b), or show where blockades are banned, feel free to do so.[/quote]Blockade is an acceptable means of prosecuting a war. It prevents arms and ammunitions from reaching your opponents. But deliberate policy of starvation is a war crime. Preventing food, medicine and relief materials from getting to the civilians is condemned all over the world. So differentiate blockade from the deliberate policy of starvation as a means to win the war.

[quote author=ekt_bear]So secession certainly could not have been for the purpose of saving lives in the north and west, you seem to agree.[/quote]My dear, it's better to fight and secure a honourable peace than to play coward in the face of grave danger that threatened to wipe off you people

By whom? The non-existent northern troops in the Eastern region? You do know that the only soldiers at that time in the East were controlled by Ojukwu, yes?

This is why I commented earlier that your are ignorant as far as this topic is concerned. Do you know that there was skirmishes at the border towns which was initiated by the Nigerian troops? The skirmishes displaced many easterners and forced them to flee to eastern heartlands.

So:
a) Who was going to massacre these folk in the East?
b) How does seceding prevent that from happening?

You are beginning to sound monotonous. Seems like you are bereft of ideas.

[quote author=ekt_bear]Two quite simple questions.

1. How does seceding preserve the lives of those still remaining in the North or West? After seceding, are their lives more safe or less safe?[/quote]Can you give us an estimate of Ndigbo population in the north after the massacre? Can you name any Igbo resident in the north after the massacre?

2. For those in the East prior to secession, were they in any danger of being massacred? If not, then again, how does seceding preserve their lives?

This shows that you are ignorant on this topic. Gowon has already launched war at Gakem and advancing on the east from the north and south. They were committing genocide already in many border towns of the east.
"Were they in the danger of being massacred?" sounds dumb to me. They've committed massacre twice and were committing genocides at the border towns. Then you are asking whether they are in the danger of being massacred. SMH

[quote author=ekt_bear]In any case, if someone hates Awolowo, no wahala. I'd probably hate him too if I were Igbo/Biafran.

But, it is pretty dishonest to make the other side appear to be demons and make yourself look like an angel, as Achebe seems to be doing.[/quote]Now answer me! Did Achebe level any false accusation against Awolowo? If yes, can you pinpoint it from the excerpt of his memoir?

[quote author=ekt_bear]What is even the connection between them being massacred and the declaration of independence.[/quote]The massacre occured twice in a space of 3 months. Ojukwu tried to calm the situation. He got assurance from Gowon government and some leaders in the north that easterners are free to return to their bases and that their lives and properties will be protected. Ojukwu actively encouraged the easterners to return to their bases. Only for the massacre to occur again. Mr.! What will you honestly do if your life is not protected in your country? Remember that the death of one man led to the outbreak of the first world war. So, why do you fail to see the connection between the death of 30,000 easterners and the declaration of independence?

Are you saying that those within Biafra were being massacred, and declaring independence saved them?

How does staying in the same union with their tormentors save them. You are reasoning with your cauda equina.

If you are referring to those outside of Biafra, say still in the north...how on earth does seceding save them? Doesn't that actually increase the jeopardy they'd face?

Honestly, you are not making sense

I think that you guys aren't thinking very clearly or critically about this stuff.

If yours is critical thought, then I'd rather be dumb.