₦airaland Forum

[quote author=Negro_Ntns link=topic=683792.msg8680545#msg8680545 date=1310157186]Eze,

Do we have to go through this all over again?

How did Nigeria make the declaration of war?[/quote]What do you call a police action?

Or do you not know the history?

^^^

Nigeria declared war on Biafra so do not forget that.

Biafra was in the moral right to secede.

redsun:
It is like saying churchill should apologise to hitler for war d atrocities of 2 world war.Orofofo thread

Gbam!

Or Roosevelt apologizing to the Japenese for Peal Harbor.

I do not thin Ekt bear is the same as SeFAGo. They have different writing styles unlike Alj harem aka Jason.

Boom bye bye

At least they are leaving early.

Kicking a man while he is down. . .

I hope the people of the Niger Delta see how that the majority of the people who are saying MEND and Boko Haram are the same is the Yoruba.

Northern apologist. . . .

And that it was an Igbo man who is defending your freedom fighters.

[quote author=Chyz* link=topic=683792.msg8679987#msg8679987 date=1310152095]I think its time to resurrect the awoloho threads. [/quote]They are not ready for that. Remember the infamy I brought with my Awolowo threads? It really caused pain amongst these people.

GenBuhari:
As I understood it, Ojukwu did not fire the first bullet in anger, so why should he apologise?

He simply decared an independant Biafra and Gowon started the war.

The war came to the East.

Ojukwu did not star the war.

Whoever fires the first bullet starts the war.

Ojukwu owes no apology.

jennyo:
Na wa for you me and you get quarrel before!!!!!!

so because i voted for fashola if he's killing me and my business i should die in silence?

Good!

dayokanu:
Terrorist Group Profile: The Movement For The Emancipation of The Niger Delta ( MEND)

http://www.terroristplanet.com/2010/02/terrorist-group-profile-the-movement-for-the-emancipation-of-the-niger-delta/

The US nor does UK recognize MEND as a terrorist organization. So your site does not mean anything. . .

[quote author=ekt_bear link=topic=708741.msg8679020#msg8679020 date=1310142410]She has my full support. Notice I've not tried to pull her down in the thread (or more generally on NL.) I just object to someone saying we don't have anyone like her We have at least one person who will be her equal, assuming all goes well.[/quote]People are talking within Nigeria. . .

So you had to go across Africa to Ethiopia to find someone of the same caliber?

alj harem aka Jason is really foolish.

1. Igboland is not landlocked

2. Igbos have no history of colonizing anyone.

3. Our territory is already defined, by the names of Igbo settlements

4. Igbos have never enslaved their neighbors, so why would we start now?

5. Igboland has oil in Imo, Abia and Anambra. Why claim something what we already have?

6. Igbos have no dream of empire. We are the only people in Nigeria to practice true DEMOCRACY.

Sad when Nigerians do not support one of their own. Even when that person is internationally recognized.

Tribalism will blind people. . .

jamace:
I hate to hear comparisons putting MEND and Boko Haram in the same boat.

MEND fought for something tangible and meaningful - better lives from resources from their land. And now that the govt has listened and provided better life (to a large extent), MEND is happy and has calm down. Please note that no amount spent on MEND is too much because that is the goose that lays the golden egg.

Now, what is Boko Haram fighting for? "We don't want western education, we want Islamic education", abi? No problem. Thank God, the fed govt  allowed sharia practice  for  their states and their states are already practicing the sharia legal system. The fed govt has also established nomadic education for them.   With all these in place, What else do they want the fed govt to do? The worst I expect from Boko Haram is to  refuse to send their children to western education schools, period. Why kill and maim people and disturb the peace of the country?  . 

With the way Boko Haram is carrying out offensive actions against innocent citizens, there seem to be an undertone to their actions because their demands are already met and in place.

Good post. . .

MEND represents a group of people who were pushed against the wall by a government that stole from their land and gave them nothing in return. Not only did the government allow corporations to steal the oil, these same corporations continue to pollute a land that was once pristine.

seanet. . .

South Sudan's Challenge to Africa's Colonial Borders

John Campbell

It is too early to tell if south Sudan independence, which becomes official July 9, will inspire a clamor for sovereignty in other fractious sub-Saharan African countries. It will, however, create space for reconsidering Africa's seemingly irrational colonial borders and its opposition to territorial secession. Over time, that might encourage secession movements, but such developments are not likely anytime soon. Absent ethnic and religious pogroms (as in Nigeria's Biafra) or state collapse (the risk in Congo), the elites that benefit from the current state structure will likely keep most African states together for now.

The cardinal principle governing relations among African states has been that boundaries inherited from colonial administrations should remain unchanged. While African elites demanded de-colonization on the basis of the self-determination of peoples, the desire to avoid delay in achieving independence restricted it to within then-existing colonial boundaries. The international community's legal recognition of the sovereignty of the new states within their former colonial boundaries conveyed their legitimacy, especially to the indigenous elites -- heirs of the colonial administrators. The creation of sovereign, independent countries within existing borders also provided new African leaders with reciprocal insurance against territorial aggression.

Accordingly, while there have been boundary disputes and adjustments, no African state has ever formally declared war on another. Instead, African warfare has largely been over control of the state. Examples include the civil wars in Angola, Mozambique, and Congo. No significant territory has seceded successfully from a post-colonial state, either. The most serious attempts -- Katanga's efforts to leave the former Belgian Congo, and Biafra's secession from Nigeria -- both failed and enjoyed little or no support from other African states. The pre-south Sudan exception is Eritrea, which separated from Ethiopia in 1991. But Italians had administered Eritrea apart from Ethiopia when both had been part of their east African empire. Ethiopia absorbed Eritrea after World War II, and the Eritreans argued that their independence from Addis Ababa was itself a form of de-colonization.
African opinion generally has held that the inviolability of national boundaries promotes peaceful resolution of disputes among sovereign states.

Among intellectuals the principle of inviolability goes hand in hand with aspirations for a greater sense of common African identity and unity. Recurring proposals for a "United States of Africa" enjoy popular support, if not among the elites who actually wield power and benefit from the current state system. Acknowledging the aspiration for broad African unity, the African Union is all but alone among international organizations in declining to recognize the absolute sovereignty of "nation states", though more in theory than in practice, as its hesitancy to confront Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe about human rights violations shows. But the African Union has been hostile to separatist movements and refuses to recognize the independence of the Republic of Somaliland, even though that small country has functioned remarkably well since 1991 in a very rough neighborhood.

An independent south Sudan challenges these assumptions and aspirations. After a generation of civil war marked by extraordinary levels of violence, south Sudan has won its independence from Sudan with the recognition of the other African states, and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between Khartoum and Juba was godmothered by the United States, Britain, Norway, and Kenya. The colonial Anglo-Egyptian Sudan thus has become two internationally recognized independent states. Unresolved outstanding issues between the two -- their boundary, the nationality of persons born in one half of the country but now living in the other, how to divide petroleum revenues -- have up to now been essentially domestic issues within one country, even if they often involved the international community. With south Sudan's independence, they are issues to be resolved between two sovereign states. That is a new situation for sub-Saharan Africa, and perhaps eventually a game-changing one.
Weigh in on this issue by emailing CFR.org.

http://www.cfr.org/sudan/south-sudans-challenge-africas-colonial-borders/p25439