₦airaland Forum

Gbawe: Folks can glibly dismiss this report but it is accurate to me. Those who collate and merge history well will know that OBJ was the main individual who brought ambitious Northern Governors (Yuguda, Aliyu, Lamido et al) on board , with his clout, for GEJ in 2011 with the pledge that "Jonathan will serve only one term". The likes of Sule Lamido started out opposing GEJ vehemently and labelling him "ungentlemanly" and "treacherous".

Every decent political analyst understood fully what had gone down. Ambitious first term Northern Governors 'chilled' after OBJ's promise because they thought they could put up with indulging GEJ for 4 years while they still had second terms to be Governor and then , perhaps with the help of GEJ as rewards for assistance they rendered him, move on to be automatic next in line in 2015 to clinch the PDP ticket without an incumbent using tools of office (EFCC for example) to put them at a disadvantage.

Now treacherous GEJ has let everyone down to include those who used their reputation (OBJ) to make the pledge for him and those the pledge pacified to come on board for the sake of "one good turn deserve another".

OBJ is now under pressure to undo the 'wrong' he has done to the North.

alj harem: Thank you. It is refreshing to know people still think in the SW not just acting like sheeps

Deep Sight: . . . . wherever a complex system exists and delivers a function or functions, that system is not the recipient in itself of the functions.

You can only have a point if you can show me that the Brain is conscious of itself as a creature called a brain, whose work is to control something called a man.

Deep Sight: Now this has always intrigued me: when people say – it’s all about the brain.

I ask you: What is the Brain’s motivation in doing these things? Is the Brain a self-satisfying entity that for its own idiosyncrasies creates these mind states?

To put the question in simpler terms – do those neurons in your brain have a motivation for doing what they do? Because you are making it appear as though true life is all about the neurons and that what we enjoy in the world: love, wealth, pleasure, passion – are only side-effects or residue of the activity of such neurons. You are making the Neurons the only things that have purpose, whereas we, complete beings that we are, are purposeless, and rely on the whims of our neurons, obeying the commands of such neurons in whatever state.

This would mean that we are slaves, and have no will or consciousness, but are mere puppets being controlled by our masters – the neurons. The neurons are now the super race – they control us in absoluteness, and we are irrelevant.

In short, you have made the brain a being all by itself. The rest of you exists only to satisfy that little clump of matter.

Now this to me is just like the statement of that great carpenter: “Is man made for the Sabbath, or the Sabbath made for man?”

Is the brain made for man, or man made for the Brain?

You make it appear as though man is made for the brain.

I would have thought that the brain is a TOOL via which man apprehends the world.

Deep Sight: Right. Might i ask you two to re-focus.

You are busy talking about the capacities of the brain. That is very well understood. But you need to respond one way or the other to my suggestion that it is a TOOL which man uses to APPREHEND the world. What say you to that?

In this do not be led astray by the fact that physical substances as you pointed out can affect the mood or state of mind. Given that the brain is a tool of the intangible mind, this is only to be expected, as it works in strict and direct association with the entire physiology of the man.

If the brain were really the man himself, then -

1. People who have near - death experiences in which the brain has already shut down (they are classified as brain-dead i.e: absolute zero neural activity and heart stopped for the period) would not be able to return to consciousness reporting visions they had in such a state. You may want to do some brief research on the well-documented cases of such near-death experiences.

2. It is also very well documented that some people have dreams about future events, which turn out to play out in startling detail. This has been my personal experience from a very young age right up till today. Might you want to suggest to me in what part of the brain such details of future events were stored?


3. How would you explain telepathy, psycho-kinesis, intuition and other human paranormal phenomena?

Nevertheless the foregoing is really all an aside. Because the core question remains the role of the brain: both of you are suggesting that the brain is the actual being – that the whole of mankind obey the dictates of neurons whose motivation must be presumed to be unknown and unknowable. Those neurons are working in concert towards the holistic perception of the man. Thus he hears, sees, feels, smells and taste, among many other functions.

Who is tasting that sweet? You make it appear as though the neurons for their own pleasure are tasting the sweet. The man is tasting the sweet through the faculty of the tongue and messages sent thereby to his brain and processed therein.

And who is hearing that music. Again you both make it appear as though the neurons arte having a party drinking wine and shagging babes inside the brain as they enjoy that music. That is absurd of course. Again, we see that the MAN is hearing and enjoying the music THROUGH the faculty of the ear and messages passed to the brain thereby and processed therein.

Who is appreciating that superb piece of art by Leonardo Da Vinci? I suppose the neurons are also art gurus, and are really enjoying the oil on canvass. Of course the man, through the faculty of the eyes, and messages sent back to the brain, - is appreciating that painting.

Now the fact that the brain works in concert with other body parts proves the point conclusively.

Why do you have a pair of eyes – so that the brain can see – or so that YOU can see?

Perhaps when you have sex, the neurons in your brain are gasping oooo and aaaah, because they just love it? No, the neurons help the man to experience the sensation.

So my trouble is that you guys make it appear as though the brain is a creature of its own, and all the parts of the body are its crutches.

All the senses and the parts of your body are evidence that a being needs to apprehend the world around it. And the brain is the faculty through which we do that.

As such, if you take substances that affect the brain, of course, your mind -state will be affected. Go pour acid into the brain-box of your car – of course the state of the car will be very badly affected. That does not make the brain-box the car, It is a tool vial which the whole vehicle functions.

Thus I make this rational contention to you: wherever a complex system exists and delivers a function or functions, that system is not the recipient in itself of the functions.

Digest this, and then disprove it if you can.

A crude example is this: car = complex system. Car does not exist to drive ITSELF around for ITS own purposes. It exists to ferry MAN around.

Again: A Computer. Complex System. Does it exist to please itself, or process information for MAN? ? ?

The brain is very much like a super computer – it is the ultimate information processor. For whom, or for what, does it process all that information? For itself?

I hope you are getting an idea of how possibly ludicrous the idea you are advancing is: That the brain does all these things to please itself!

IT IS GLARING that such systems work to support something else: namely the BEING.

Logicboy03: What? Comunistic, totalitarian atheism in America?
You are free to donate money for them to sue the school. Nairaland can house your ignorance but courts do not grant ignorance as a defense.

Logicboy03: You are smarter than this.

Obinoscopy: And why would anyone want to use the word Yoruba in an academic debate?

There's nofin wrong in arguing for Biafra when the time comes. This is democracy, everyone has freedom of speech provided it does not infringe the freedom of others

shymexx: [/s]

When did Yoruba people claim as being a no man's land?? Every Yoruba person born and raised in the UK(esp. South London) know where home is - that's how we were raised and we're proud of our culture... Heck, most Yoruba kids out here can speak, or understand the language... That's the difference between our upbringing and yours - we're proud of our heritage and we all know where home is....

And nah. I digest what Igbo bigots say about Yorubas both online and offline - and how your parents hate everything Yoruba, yet they can't do without them... Just fvck off, mate!

afam4eva: Some insecure people have succeeded in derailing this beautiful thread. Mind you Abuja was also mentioned but no one seems to be talking about. According to some people, we want to steal their land. I've lived in Lagos most of my life but i don't see it as home. Enugu is my home sweet home. I just want every Nigerian to choose wherever they want to call home. That's my dream for Nigeria. If that's not possible then i say divide the cesspit because the hypocrisy is mind bugging. We keep preaching unity yet we can't practice it. Everything that we do points to the fact that we don't want to be united. I beg ya'll once again to focus on the topic. If you want to troll pls find another thread to do so. Thanks.

Katsumoto: We have to agree to disagree. You are seeking to invalidate Article 23 of the Geneva convention with your opinion. I do not wish to challenge your opinion so as to debate it.

With regards to the two falsehoods, I didn't go silent, I have made my point and didn't see a need to keep repeating myself. Just as I am not seeking to repeat myself to rebut your last post.

If anyone believes that the Nigerian side deliberately starved civilians, then they should make a case to the ICC.

Thanks for being civil.

Katsumoto: @ Deep Sight

You are picking parts of Article 23, interpreting them in YOUR own view, and ignoring other parts. Whether you believe that the risk of diverting aid from civilians is unavoidable in every conflict or not is irrelevant. Once it is proven that aid was diverted from the group it was meant for under Article 23, the Nigerian side is no longer culpable. The article lists several conditions and you decided to focus on only one. You are introducing opinion and conjecture in a bid to lay guilt at Awo's feet. You are a lawyer and you should know that opinion or conjecture will not convict anyone in a court of law. The court will look at all the conditions to ascertain whether civilians were deliberately targeted.

(a) that the consignments may be diverted from their destination - Aid was diverted

(b) that the control may not be effective - it was not effective because many died from starvation even before total blockade was imposed in June 1969

(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 - [b]Biafra did gain several advantages. It obtained funds from relief agencies; it used to funds to procure arms and to establish its own currency.[/b]

(e) 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 - Nigeria placed conditions which were rejected by Ojukwu

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 - As above, this was rejected by Ojukwu

While you may focus on those individuals that were starved for the six months till the end of the war, others will argue that the move saved more lives. This is now globally accepted. Even by the relief agencies.

Katsumoto: Article 23 of the 1949 Geneva is very clear on starvation. The Gowon administration did not fall foul of that article; please read it again.

The deliberate starvation of Biafrans was/is the responsibility of Ojukwu and the Biafran High Command. They couldn't feed their citizens and should have surrendered but they didn't. That is the main point. The issue of starvation would have been a stronger one if Nigeria continued to prevent food and aids to Biafra after the war.

The death of civilians is regrettable but there is no conflict in the history of man and was that has not led to the deaths of soldiers and civilians alike.

Trying to lay the blame of starvation on one man is disingenuous at worst and naive at best.

1. Biafra went to war without securing arms and food

2. Nigeria gained a military advantage but allowed aid to be air lifted.

3. Biafra then immorally charged relief agencies fees for supplying FREE food. Biafra used this funds to buy arms

4. Nigeria then put a stop to this and the war ends six months later.

Yet you want to put the blame of deliberate starvation on one one? ? ? The Biafrans were not culpable for the starvation and deaths? ? ?

I guess we have to agree to disagree. The facts are out there; let everyone analyse the 'facts' that suit their positions.

Art. 23. 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.

After entering the country, the volunteers, in addition to Biafran health workers and hospitals, were subjected to attacks by the Nigerian army, and witnessed civilians being murdered and starved by the blockading forces. Kouchner also witnessed these events, particularly the huge number of starving children, and when he returned to France, he publicly criticised the Nigerian government and the Red Cross for their seemingly complicit behaviour. With the help of other French doctors, Kouchner put Biafra in the media spotlight and called for an international response to the situation. These doctors, led by Kouchner, concluded that a new aid organisation was needed that would ignore political/religious boundaries and prioritise the welfare of victims. They created Médecins Sans Frontières in 1971 (Doctors Without Borders).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_Civil_War[19]

Katsumoto: Hello Deep Sight,

You are interpreting blockade to imply deliberate starvation. The object of any armed conflict is to defeat your enemy. Blockade or by its medieval term, siege, simply aims to cut your enemy off supply lines so as to achieve a quick victory. The war strategy for the Nigerian civil war was crafted by Army HQ and not Awolowo. That should be very clear. After having effected a blockade, Gowon allowed, for humanitarian reasons, the air shipment of aid (food, medicine, etc) by relief agencies.

As I stated earlier, Awolowo’s comments relate to the complete enforcement of that blockade i.e. no more air supplies. The total blockade was enforced in June 1969 because despite the starvation of kids, there were no starving soldiers and Biafra continued to charge fees to relief agencies so as to buy arms. Going by Awo’s comments in that interview, I suspected that was the interview you were referring to earlier, he is claiming responsibility for the decision to stop relief agencies dropping aid through air shipments. I will not disagree with that but I will not agree to Awo being responsible for the blockade or starvation for two main reasons

1. Blockade is a military tactic and was the brainchild of military strategists and had been in enforcement since September 1967, well before Awo visited Calabar, saw dying children, and advised against air shipments.

2. Responsibility for feeding Biafrans lay with Biafran High Command. If they surrendered when they ran out of food, no one would have died of starvation. A blockade should only affect imported goods. A war is over the minute you can’t grow food internally and you can’t import as well. During the American civil war, the Yankees enforced a blockade, which mainly affected arms and imported food items like bread. There were riots over bread shortages but by and large, there was no starvation. I have provided some information to support my position that the Gowon administration tried hard to prevent the suffering of civilians.

Deep Sight: Addittionally, Katsumoto, can you kindly address three simple questions for me:

1. What is the definition of a war crime? Is this a correct definition? - - ->

War crimes are serious violations of the laws applicable in armed conflict (also known as international humanitarian law) giving rise to individual criminal responsibility. Examples of such conduct include "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of prisoners, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime

2. Does the enforecement of a food aid blockade in a civil war which leads to the death by starvation of hundreds of thousands of people qualify as a war crime under the above (or your own) definition of a war crime. Would it qualify as per the bold part of the definition above?

3. Did Chief Awolowo expressly claim authourship of the food blockade in his 1983 interview which I referred to.

Thanks.

thehomer: Intervals are being measured.

Yes. As long as there are periodic changes in the universe, it can be assessed.

I never said or implied that nothing was being measure. Now can you tell me what the "existence of the duration is contingent" on?

Katsumoto: There is no contradiction; permit me to explain.

At the start of the war, Nigerian commanders attacked from the North and south (through the ocean). With the mid-west declaring neutrality and Cameroun supporting Nigeria, Biafra was boxed in. This meant that a military blockade was in effect. Nigeria also controlled the skies but allowed humanitarian aid to be transported and delivered by air to Biafra. Biafra used this opportunity to also smuggle arms in; this situation continued until June 1969 when Gowon announced a total blockade. Awo's comments related to the total blockade in June 1969. He was justifying the total blockade with those comments. It is no coincidence that the war ended 6 months after total blockade was enforced.

In case I missed the mark, please be specific with regards to the contradiction.

Deep Sight: Stop being lazy. We know that this is what is said. This does nothing to change the point or the question. Have a look at this -

X Y Z

Now lets say that X, Y and Z above are galaxies. Let us also say that they are stationary, but that the space between them is expanding and increasing. If this happens, then X is going to keep moving further to the left and Z further to the right. That would mean that our hypothetical three galaxy universe above has moved into previously unnocupied space on the left and the right.

Such space could not be said to be a function of the universe because our universe is just consisting of these three galaxies and the space between them. As such the spaces to the right and left where our galaxies "move" into, are not made by our universe or its commencement.

It is already existing space.

There is no model that you can present which will resolve this conundrum. Jayriginal fetched a bunch of clueless andc hoplessly confused extracts last night: and they just fell apart in a hail of contradictions. In one breath they say that the question makes no sense. In another breath they say the expansion is occurring into nothing - forgetting that nothingness does not exist, much less can nothingness be residable cosmic space. They then say that the expansion ius occuring into previously unoccupied space. Which is of course the right thing to say, but contradicts the wild nonsense in most of the extracts and makes my point sink home!



I am convinced by the commonsensical observations that expansions do not and cannot occur into nothingness: they can only rather occur if there is space to expand into.

jayriginal: Deep Sight, this is a new intellectual low for even you. I cannot be blamed for your poor comprehension.

In your defense, perhaps you have multiple personality disorder. I wonder which of you I am talking to this time around.

There is nothing I posted that is of my experience or knowledge or work.

What is sad is that despite your emptiness (being a consequence of your mouth/fingers working overtime while your brain is on holiday), you resort to shameful tactics.
Here is what I said, reproduced fully.



So, where have I lied and what have I denied ?
Do you or do you not see the rider that it is not my personal experience ?

It is amusing that you wish to jump on what you consider contradictions without seeing what is really obvious.

The fact is, there are people who are trained and equipped to research and investigate these issues. With all the resources at their disposal, there are issues that they cannot quite agree on. How then is anyone expected to take you, a layman with elementary science, your Kings College Encyclopedias and the amateur arguments you make seriously when you assert that which they cannot ?

That is what should be apparent to a keen mind. It is in fact one of the basic reasons why I say I do not need science to hold my position.

Let me break my post down for you since it is now apparent that you are as smart as a grinding stone.

1. I have no personal knowledge of these things, I can only tell you what the experts say
2. Space is not expanding into anything observable (in fact see point 3 for clarification)
3. Space is not expanding in the way you would expand your house
4. Rather, galaxies are moving away from each other into space that is already there.

Like the lightweight you are, you stumble over basic comprehension.
Lets look at your embarrassing post.



You hold tenaciously to the line, "into space is already there".

How dull can you be to ignore the points that I mentioned to wit :
That space is not expanding into anything observable,
That space is not expanding in the way you would expand your house
That rather, galaxies are moving away from each other into space that is already there.

Why should the struck out part make you stumble ? Cant you see that it is qualified ?

Cant you see that your assertions are as remarkably idiotic as the following statement "The earth orbits into space that is already there, therefore the big b@ng didnt create space and evidently such space was already there for the expansion to occur into.".

Once again, remarkably idiotic !

So please good Sir, tell me, where did I lie and what did I deny ?

As for being a "decent" human being, I couldnt care less what you think about me. However, lets jog your memory a bit and in the process, compare personalities.

On the Darwin's day thread, you continually "distorted" my position, continually said things I didnt say, and you constructed strawmen, the likes of which would make the most accomplished sophist stand in awe.

I gave you several chances by asking you to quote me and you never did. Despite that, you continued your dishonest behaviour yet never once did I call you a liar. As a matter of fact, you even admitted that people have been accusing you of "misconstruing" their position.



How about you admitting another "distortion"





my gracious reply ? (instead of calling you a liar or gloating that I caught you in an "error" )



eerily similar to this thread,



my response,



Notably, you never did simply because you couldnt. You are an amateur, a quack, a charlatan, a humbug, a baby philosopher who can cram but cannot comprehend. You are a lightweight and I pity you severely. I pity you not because of the depths you wallow in, but because it appears you can never rise out of them.

I am drawn to the following statement of yours



How you can make this statement and yet fail to see the implication shouldnt surprise me but it does as I am generally reluctant to think that low of anybody; even you.

You see "space that was already there" and you happily jump on it because you think it supports your notion of eternal space. This is after I had on another thread posted for your benefit a write up explaining this concept.



You do not think of anything except how everything you come across fits into your dogma.

It would seem that you are assuming that space has a boundary which is why you foolishly seize upon the "space already there" without the least understanding. This is even after it has been explained to you that space IS NOT EXPANDING IN THE WAY YOU WOULD EXPAND YOUR HOUSE.

You huff and puff and are totally devoid of grey matter.

It hurts me to post this of a person of whom I once wrote



but you should thank your stars that my internet has been down for about two days. Ive severely toned down this post.

Your last post calcifies you for what you truly are yet you call someone else a liar.



They say nothingness doesn't exist. I say it probably does. Indeed the truly perfect vacuum is most likely in your skull.