₦airaland Forum

ElSudani:
The problem with zik is similar to what we experience with Ibos today. They always want to go the opposite way on everything with Yoruba, whether it is in their interest or not is secondary.

Right here is a person that understands the classic igbo way of reasoning.

AlexBells:
His judgement wasn’t sound at all, his judgement inspired the civil war and brought us into this mess

You are still as dull as your Azikiwe. You are blaming Awolowo for the crimes of Azikiwe, the greedy Igbo man. Awo supported seccesion but Zik opposed it. Zik even further recommended the talk of seccesion to be a treason. Treasonable offences are punishable by death in Nigerian law. This means that anyone who would want to secceede will be killed. You people made the law through Zik and you still blaming Awolowo for attempting punish you because you broke the law you made yourself. Are you this daft?

Nothing to see here. Just another igbo who thought something would favour him and his people, and plunged headlong into it, only for the thing to bite him and his people back. This is the classic igbo act/talk before reasoning nzogbu nzogbu way. It's entrenched in their DNA.

Wahabfuture:
How long are we going to continue with this useless blame games, we should be talking about how to divide this country, let everybody go their way, i hate being called a Nigerian

Devide you say? Sorry, it won't come. Look at it realistically! Igbo politicians who should be clamouring for it are lacing their pockets with Nigerian money. As usual, they are blinded by their selfish desires, just like Zik who had enough properties in Lagos and wouldn't let go of that for the freedom of his people.

AlexBells:
The thing I don’t fancy about you is that you always talk without considering timing. In 1954, what value will Zik stand on to support secession when the bone of contention was independence. Zik was a great guy. Awo was being delusional. Yes today Nigeria seems chaotic but that wasn’t the case in 1954. In fact the North opposed independence but Awo was proposing secession which could have plunged the young country into chaos of course at the end it did, Zik has long been vindicated.

Which means that Zik couldnt see beyond his nose just like you.

Armaggedon:
Zik stood for regionalism and federalism with financial and legislative autonomy where the regions developed in their own pace. No contradictions.

One of the most confusing figures in Nigeria's history was Awolowo. He claimed he wanted secession and zik rejected. But when the opportunity presented itself during Biafra, the same Awolowo made a complete U-turn and and started fighting for a unitary one Nigeria as championed by gowon. His attitude justified Zik's opinions about him.

For those who claim his demand was in good faith, his demand was rediculous and he knew it. He was neither here no there. There is no sovereign state in the world that has secession in it's constitution. If he truly wanted his region to be alone he should have demanded a pre-independence referendum like southern Cameroon or pre-independence partitioning as in British India. Opting for a secession clause instead of pre-independence referendum clearly indicated lack of commitment to specific ideology from Awolowo. You can't officially keep one leg in the country and keeping one outside. A snake he was.

You don't have understanding of the subject.
Awolowo and the Acton Group (and indeed several other stakeholders) at the constitutional conference were unsure of the future of a new country put together by the British Colonislism and suggested a secession clause in the constitution to give guidelines and procedures for peaceful withdrawal from the Federation.

This was totally different from the civil war.
Awolowo was aversed to the civil war which was NOT about peaceful withdrawal from the Federation under any laid down rules (which a secession clause in the constitution would have achieved).

oyatz:
This was totally different from the civil war.
Awolowo was aversed to the civil war which was NOT about peaceful withdrawal from the Federation under any laid down rules (which a secession clause in the constitution would have achieved).

This is a key distinction.

T9ksy:
So, you truly believe that Yorubas would have gone to war to keep fulanis in this warped contraption? Yorubas spent the best part of the 1800s fighting these guys.

Maybe the rest of the southerners would band up to keep the fulanis in Nigeria by force but Awo certainly, would not waste the lives of his progressive generation to come, on fulanis inclusion into this "mere geographical expression"

Look. The military was a product of colonialism. It did not matter if it was Igbo or Hausa, any act of secession will be seen as treason. Bello is not even a military man. Arresting him would have been easy like cooking indomie. Was it not same treason Awo was arrested for?
As long as Nigeria existed the way it did then, no one will be able to leave except via war

Kukutente23:
engrchykae thinks Awo is a cross carpeter who is not stable. You think it's OK for politicians to align. Which narrative should we go with?

As for using hunger as a weapon, even Napoleon did. So did Alexander the Great. Its called creating a siege against the enemy. Even the Israelites whom you claim to share ancestry with did same in the bible. Read the story of the fall ofJericho and Joab the chief of David's army and his pursuit of Sheba. Also read the siege against Judah by the Amalekites. Same also happened between East Germany and west Germany.

Even Israel is starving Palestininans now and y'all hail them. My point is the starvation you're whining about like little birches is a valid weapon of warfare. If you who are engaged in war can't man your territory to ensure supply, don't come and start looking for pity.

The right thing to do in such situation is to surrender once you've been trapped from all sides. Stop blaming Awolowo for your war leader's foolishness.

Ask yourself why he now ran away when the sound of defeat was getting close to him. He didn't want to die but he allowed others die. What a wicked, heartless soul!!

Starvation as a weapon of war - is a war crime - especially when deployed against civilian populations. This is a fact under the Geneva Convention 1948 - to which Nigeria was a signatory at the time. Obafemi Awolowo openly admitted deploying starvation as a weapon. This makes him a certified war criminal.

It is ridiculous for you to cite Napoleon, Alexander, Nazi Germany or the Bible as justifications. Abominations committed in history do not justify abominations. And just in case you think the Bible is a trump card, it is not. It is a book full of unmentionable atrocities.

To call starvation a "legitimate weapon of war" - is beyond sickening.

Thankfully - that is nothing more than your opinion, because as I have said - only three facts count here -

1. It is a war crime under the Geneva Convention ( - See [Protocol I, Article 54)
2. Nigeria was a signtory to the Geneva Convention
3. Awolowo admitted to it - and to being the author of the policy.

He was thus a war criminal regardless of your repugnant and shameful opinion.

cc: Rikkely

oyatz:
You don't have understanding of the subject.
Awolowo and the Acton Group (and indeed several other stakeholders) at the constitutional conference were unsure of the future of a new country put together by the British Colonislism and suggested a secession clause in the constitution to give guidelines and procedures for peaceful withdrawal from the Federation.

This was totally different from the civil war.
Awolowo was aversed to the civil war which was NOT about peaceful withdrawal from the Federation under any laid down rules (which a secession clause in the constitution would have achieved).

Besides, he's ignorant to claim there's no country in the world with a secession clause

DeepsightX:
Starvation as a weapon of war - is a war crime - especially when deployed against civilian populations. This is a fact under the Geneva Convention 1948 - to which Nigeria was a signatory at the time. Obafemi Awolowo openly admitted deploying starvation as a weapon. This makes him a certified war criminal.

It is ridiculous for you to cite Napoleon, Alexander, Nazi Germany or the Bible as justifications. Abominations committed in history do not justify abominations. And just in case you think the Bible is a trump card, it is not. It is a book full of unmentionable atrocities.

To call starvation a "legitimate weapon of war" - is beyond sickening.

Thankfully - that is nothing more than your opinion, because as I have said - only three facts count here -

1. It is a war crime under the Geneva Convention ( - See [Protocol I, Article 54)
2. Nigeria was a signtory to the Geneva Convention
3. Awolowo admitted to it - and to being the author of the policy.

He was thus a war criminal regardless of your repugnant and shameful opinion.

cc: Rikkely

1. Update yourself. Starvation as a war crime was adopted in 1977 not 1948 and even countries like the US still disagree with that particular adoption. Starvation was not in the original articles of the Geneva conventions.
2. The exact wordings are very vague. Though it is clear that starvation is not allowed by the 1977 protocol, what the FG did wouldn't amount to such just as what Israel is doing now will not as well because the protocol says one shouldn't remove, attack or destroy objects important for survival. In the case of Biafra, you'll have to prove that FG destroyed anything. What they put up was simply a siege which led to starvation since most of East couldn't farm and ensure their own supplies. Putting up a siege is not against the Convention and that was my earlier point. As a matter of fact, it is Ojukwu that will look like a war criminal since he destroyed the main bridge linking the east with the rest of the country this cutting off that means of supplies.
3. Nigeria signed up to Geneva Convention in 1988 so those laws did not apply to Nigeria during the civil war. Also Nigeria signed up to ICC in the early 2000s. So as you can see, you can't hold Awo for committing any war crime as far as all the above are concerned. Instead, as I pointed out in my comment that you misinterpreted, hold Ojuku who failed to surrender when under siege and left his people to starve only to run away when his well- being was threatened. Dude knows how to run but does not know how to save others.

Putinofrussia:
Which means that Zik couldnt see beyond his nose just like you.

He saw everything and tried to avert it, your man wrote all shades of bad into the country, no wonder he was in prison

yommen:
You are still as dull as your Azikiwe. You are blaming Awolowo for the crimes of Azikiwe, the greedy Igbo man. Awo supported seccesion but Zik opposed it. Zik even further recommended the talk of seccesion to be a treason. Treasonable offences are punishable by death in Nigerian law. This means that anyone who would want to secceede will be killed. You people made the law through Zik and you still blaming Awolowo for attempting punish you because you broke the law you made yourself. Are you this daft?

Same people celebrating Awo is vilifying Kanu, are they any different, double standard. Zik was a nationalist Awo was a tribalist

yommen:
No body in his generation is smarter than Zik but Zik still led you to present predicament. Pride wey no lead you anywhere wey you still dey display.

Zik never led anyone to predicament, when a semblance of predicament happened, Zik was no longer leading

Kukutente23:
1. Update yourself. Starvation as a war crime was adopted in 1977 not 1948 and even countries like the US still disagree with that particular adoption. Starvation was not in the original articles of the Geneva conventions.
2. The exact wordings are very vague. Though it is clear that starvation is not allowed by the 1977 protocol, what the FG did wouldn't amount to such just as what Israel is doing now will not as well because the protocol says one shouldn't remove, attack or destroy objects important for survival. In the case of Biafra, you'll have to prove that FG destroyed anything. What they put up was simply a siege which led to starvation since most of East couldn't farm and ensure their own supplies. Putting up a siege is not against the Convention and that was my earlier point. As a matter of fact, it is Ojukwu that will look like a war criminal since he destroyed the main bridge linking the east with the rest of the country this cutting off that means of supplies.
3. Nigeria signed up to Geneva Convention in 1988 so those laws did not apply to Nigeria during the civil war. Also Nigeria signed up to ICC in the early 2000s. So as you can see, you can't hold Awo for committing any war crime as far as all the above are concerned. Instead, as I pointed out in my comment that you misinterpreted, hold Ojuku who failed to surrender when under siege and left his people to starve only to run away when his well- being was threatened. Dude knows how to run but does not know how to save others.

Since your central argument is that starvation was not made a war crime until 1977, I respond as follows -

1. The 4th Geneva Convention, formally known as the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, was adopted on August 12, 1949. It made it clear that starvation of civilian populations was not permissible. See Part II, Article 15 as well. It came into effect in October 1950.

2. Nigeria signed the Geneva Conventions Act in 1960 - incorporating the provisions of the Geneva Conventions as law.

3. Aside from the foregoing, I am taken aback that you would seek to defend starvation on such weak grounds. Your first ground, which was the date and timing, has been dismanled in 1 & 2 above. So you are waffling. Your second ground is a sickening and pedantic play on words - saying that the requirement is not to "remove, destroy or attack objects important to survival." Needless to say, the blockade was enforced by attacking and shooting down aid planes - so again, this weak defense falls flat on its face. An aid plane is an "object important to survival." So is a farm - and the FG bombed farms. The extract you attached specifically mentioned attacking agriculture.

But its not just the fact that you technically fail here that is disturbing. It is the fact that you could even attempt to use such a technicality against something as vicious, visceral and primal as hunger. That is where I would begin to question your humanity.

4. In the modern age, do you require a treaty to know what a crime against humanity is? I hope you know that no such thing as "crimes against humanity" had been defined when the Nazis were committing the holocaust, and yet the Nuremberg Trials went on to define those crimes and convicted Nazis of same. This simply shows that in the modern mileu you cannot hide behind either a a law against crimes against humanity not being enacted yet or your failure to sign on to any relevant treaty. Crimes against humanity transcend the written word. And again, this is where you shock me. Your failure to instinctively recognize that, treaty or no treaty.

cc: Rikkely

DeepsightX:
Since your central argument is that starvation was not made a war crime until 1977, I respond as follows -

1. The 4th Geneva Convention, formally known as the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, was adopted on August 12, 1949. It made it clear that starvation of civilian populations was not permissible. See Part II, Article 15 as well. It came into effect in October 1950.

2. Nigeria signed the Geneva Conventions Act in 1960 - incorporating the provisions of the Geneva Conventions as law.

3. Aside from the foregoing, I am taken aback that you would seek to defend starvation on such weak grounds. Your first ground, which was the date and timing, has been dismanled in 1 & 2 above. So you are waffling. Your second ground is a sickening and pedantic play on words - saying that the requirement is not to "remove, destroy or attack objects important to survival." Needless to say, the blockade was enforced by attacking and shooting down aid planes - so again, this weak defense falls flat on its face. An aid plane is an "object important to survival." But its not just the fact that you technically fail here that is disturbing. It is the fact that you could even attempt to use such a technicality against something as vicious, visceral and primal as hunger. That is where I would begin to question your humanity.

4. In the modern age, do you require a treaty to know what a crime against humanity is? I hope you know that no such thing as "crimes against humanity" had been defined when the Nazis were committing the holocaust, and yet the Nuremberg Trials went on to define those crimes and convicted Nazis of same. This simply shows that in the modern mileu you cannot hide behind either a a law against crimes against humanity not being enacted yet or your failure to sign on to any relevant treaty. Crimes against humanity transcend the written word. And again, this is where you shock me. Your failure to instinctively recognize that, treaty or no treaty.

cc: Rikkely

1. I have produced article 15 for you. Show me where it prohibits starvation. Note that you've confused my central theme. It was a blockade that Nigeria enforced. Nigeria did not destroy Biafra farms or food supplies route. So Biafra basically starved itself by its inability to man its own territory or be self-sufficient in terms of food production. Iran is suffering so much deprivation today because of sanctions. Russia was sanctioned but is getting stronger. Iran is not strong enough. Russia is. You can't blame US or the West for Iran's lack of capacity. And yeah! Starvation was not made a war crime until 1977!!

2. The Geneva Act of 1960 did not ratify the full body of the Geneva Convention. It only ratified the aspects for prisoners of war, protection of rights and the red cross. It was the 1988 ratification that covered starvation and some other like I already told you.

3. I am not aware of Nigeria shooting down aid planes. Kindly avail me of such examples. And I hope you'll know what an aid plane is. A plane with the enemy's emblem or call sign can't be an aid plane. What Nigeria basically did and is publicly documented was to enforce a blockade against Biafra. Nothing was destroyed. Instead, it was Ojuku who destroyed Niger Bridge. I challenge you to disprove this.

4. A war is not a tea party. It is a known fact that all is fair in love and war. It was Plato who said a well- founded and healthy city must be prepared for war. In other words, war is a means of survival of the state. If Biafra as a state was not confident of its survival but went headlong into war with a state it largely depended on, then it has no one but itself to blame. Go back and read the story of Joab I referenced earlier. When the women of the city realised they can't survive the siege, they gave Joab what he wanted and the siege ceased. That's common sense. Putting your survival in your own hands and not expecting good behaviour from an enemy you're at war with. So, if you're thinking of humanity, know that a war situation is not one to appeal to humanity no matter the Conventions and rules in place.

Kukutente23:
1. I have produced article 15 for you. Show me where it prohibits starvation.

The generality of that Article, but the whole of the spirit of the Geneva Conventions speak to the point. However, specifically, the Fourth Convention speaks against torture, brutality of any kind and acts towards the extermination of a population. See the attached.

Are you really going to be be technical and pedantic enough to proceed to quibble as to whether or not stavation is a form of torture - and whether the starvation of a population is not an act towards the extermination of a population? Or whether that does not constitute a "collective punishment?" - Article 33 of the 4th Convention specifically prohibits collective punishment.

I beg you to try to spare me that, because you have already shocked me, and still shock me more, with your adoption of a technical defense of something which I have described as too vicious, visceral and primal (hunger) to be defended with technicalities. That in itself is unconscionable.

2. The Geneva Act of 1960 did not ratify the full body of the Geneva Convention. It only ratified the aspects for prisoners of war, protection of rights and the red cross. It was the 1988 ratification that covered starvation and some other like I already told you.

The Act provides for punishment for persons breaching the provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/national-practice/geneva-conventions-act-1960

And yet again, I repeat: why resort to this sort of technical defense of something so vicious, visceral and primal - such as starvation as a weapon of war?

3. I am not aware of Nigeria shooting down aid planes. Kindly avail me of such examples. And I hope you'll know what an aid plane is. A plane with the enemy's emblem or call sign can't be an aid plane. What Nigeria basically did and is publicly documented was to enforce a blockade against Biafra. Nothing was destroyed. Instead, it was Ojuku who destroyed Niger Bridge. I challenge you to disprove this.

This is too notorious a fact for you to demand proof of - and at this stage I begin to suspect you are being deliberately mendacious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Biafra

- - - > Note in the above link that relief stopped when the FG shot down a Swedish relief plane.

Furthermore -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biafran_airlift

https://biafranwarmemories.com/2020/01/10/nigerian-migs-were-trying-to-shoot-us-down/

But the foregoing aside, I would inquire how else a blockade can be enforced if not by shooting down any such planes? Why did such planes have to come in at night and land without lights?

Not only planes, but farms wetre bombed.

4. A war is not a tea party. It is a known fact that all is fair in love and war. It was Plato who said a well- founded and healthy city must be prepared for war. In other words, war is a means of survival of the state. If Biafra as a state was not confident of its survival but went headlong into war with a state it largely depended on, then it has no one but itself to blame. Go back and read the story of Joab I referenced earlier. When the women of the city realised they can't survive the siege, they gave Joab what he wanted and the siege ceased. That's common sense. Putting your survival in your own hands and not expecting good behaviour from an enemy you're at war with. So, if you're thinking of humanity, know that a war situation is not one to appeal to humanity no matter the Conventions and rules in place.

War, especially in the modern age, has protocols. Barbarity is frowned upon - since the second world war, lessons have been learnt and that is precisely why we have such things as "crimes against humanity" and "war crimes." Here, you would appear to implicitly suggest that no such things exist because "[wars are] not a tea party" . . . Wars are not a tea party indeed, but the fact is that humans have evolved to the stage where they acknowledge certain acts in war to be war crimes. This is the fact. And starvation as a weapon is one.

As I said, this remains the case, treaty or no treaty, and you didnt discuss this point at all. I pointed out to you that the Nazis were convicted of crimes against humanity even when no such thing was defined at the time. Neither was Germany a signtory to a treaty that didnt even exist at the time. This reinforces my point that you are being pedantic - and on a sensitive matter of humanity too. Because this underscores what I said that crimes against humanity transcend the written word. No treaty is required for anyone in the modern age to recognize the barbarity and inhumanity and thus criminality of certain acts even during a war. This is not 10000 BC. We are talking about the 20th century, and we are talking in the 21st century.

You may also wish to have a look at this article -

https://usafricaonline.com/2012/10/10/awolowos-starvation-policy-against-biafrans-and-the-igbo-requires-apology-not-attacks-on-achebe-by-francis-adewale/

cc: Rikkely

Uchek:
So why did Awo who advocated for secession clause in 1954 fight against secession when it finally happened in 1967? Does it mean that he was merely grandstanding when he advocated for the inclusion of clause in the independence constitution. Action speak louder than words.Zik verbally opposed secession clause. Awo on the other hand fought a war & killed millions of his fellow Nigerians who actionalized the very idea Awo advocated in the past.

How do you explain the dissonance between Awo’s words on secession & action on secession?

You mean Awolowo should support the secession after leaving the prison when he was released by Gowon with an army to protect him? who does such a stupid inconceivable thing?

PS: Kukutente - please dont refer me to the bible in this discussion. I dont subscribe to any religion and as far as I know the old testament is full of barbarities and aboniminations.

DeepsightX:
The generality of that Article, but the whole of the spirit of the Geneva Conventions speak to the point. However, specifically, the Fourth Convention speaks against torture, brutality of any kind and acts towards the extermination of a population. See the attached.

Are you really going to be be technical and pedantic enough to proceed to quibble as to whether or not stavation is a form of torture - and whether the starvation of a population is not an act towards the extermination of a population? Or whether that does not constitute a "collective punishment?"

I beg you to try to spare me that, because you have already shocked me, and still shock me more, with your adoption of a technical defense of something which I have described as too vicious, visceral and primal (hunger) to be defended with technicalities. That in itself is unconscionable.



The Act provides for punishment for persons breaching the provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/national-practice/geneva-conventions-act-1960

And yet again, I repeat: why resort to this sort of technical defense of something so vicious, visceral and primal - such as starvation as a weapon of war?



This is too notorious a fact for you to demand proof of - and at this stage I begin to suspect you are being deliberately mendacious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Biafra

- - - > Note in the above link that relief stopped when the FG shot down a Swedish relief plane.

Furthermore -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biafran_airlift

https://biafranwarmemories.com/2020/01/10/nigerian-migs-were-trying-to-shoot-us-down/

But the foregoing aside, I would inquire how else a blockade can be enforced if not by shooting down any such planes? Why did such planes have to come in at night and land without lights?

Not only planes, but farms wetre bombed.



War, especially in the modern age, has protocols. Barbarity is frowned upon - since the second world war, lessons have been learnt and that is precisely why we have such things as "crimes against humanity" and "war crimes." Here, you would appear to implicitly suggest that no such things exist because "[wars are] not a tea party" . . . Wars are not a tea party indeed, but the fact is that humans have evolved to the stage where they acknowledge certain acts in war to be war crimes. This is the fact. And starvation as a weapon is one.

As I said, this remains the case, treaty or no treaty, and you didnt discuss this point at all. I pointed out to you that the Nazis were convicted of crimes against humanity even when no such thing was defined at the time. Neither was Germany a signtory to a treaty that didnt even exist at the time. This reinforces my point that you are being pedantic - and on a sensitive matter of humanity too. Because this underscores what I said that crimes against humanity transcend the written word. No treaty is required for anyone in the modern age to recognize the barbarity and inhumanity and thus criminality of certain acts even during a war. This is not 10000 BC. We are talking about the 20th century, and we are talking in the 21st century.

You may also wish to have a look at this article -

https://usafricaonline.com/2012/10/10/awolowos-starvation-policy-against-biafrans-and-the-igbo-requires-apology-not-attacks-on-achebe-by-francis-adewale/

cc: Rikkely

You don't get to decide what constitutes torture Mr Man. Torture is well defined by the same articles you've been posting. I've posted it here for you to read.

Secondly, I'm happy you asked yourself why aid planes flew at night. That was all on Ojuku who refused aid planes to fly in the day claiming they will be used to spy on and even poison Biafra citizens. These are his words from your Wikipedia page.

The Biafran government rejected daylight aid flights and a proposed aid corridor. Its leader Ojukwu argued that these routes would allow the Nigerian government to poison Biafrans and enable the bombing of Biafra. However, another reason was to preserve the clandestine routes from which Biafra continued to import arms and ammunition.

Let me avert your mind to article 15 that says both parties must agree to aids moving across and to the time and place such will occur, in other words demilitarised zones. Ojuku in effect refused demilitarised zones!! Who is the murderer now? That's why I asked you to show me an aid plane shot down. A plane flying at night over war territory is basically looking for trouble. That's what Ojuku invited. Even the man who read interviewed alluded to same thing.

As I already pointed out to you, starvation was not prohibited then as a weapon of war and even if it was, the blockade was not starvation. Ojuku had a responsibility to ensure self-sufficiency before starting a war. In the midst of the blockade, he was still getting arm supplies to prosecute his selfish war but wouldn't leave space for aid. Refer back to my quote from Plato.

Appealing to sentiments is always a valid weapon by a losing party. The Palestinians who started a war are doing same now. But war is a struggle for survival or expansion not a moral expedition. The same West who came up with all these Conventions don't even obey it. George Bush and Tony Blair are still going about as if nothing happened in Iraq. ICC just got sanctioned by the US Congress for declaring Netanyahu wanted.

In all these, what I get as underlying all these is a disgust at Awolowo for helping Nigeria win the war. I bet if Awolowo had chosen sides with Biafra and given any idea, none of you will blink for a moment as to the proprietary or otherwise of the idea. You'll probably hail him a hero! Meanwhile, the two characters who are most at fault for the war are Gowon and Ojuku. Both were egotistical maniacs who elevated personal nuances into territorial fisticuffs. Ojuku, an otherwise brilliant and educated soldier, probably the most educated then should have averted his mind to Plato's words. Biafra had no diplomatic mileage or internal strength to survive a war with a well established entity like Nigeria. There was no chance of victory yet he went headlong into it. Gowon should have stuck with the Aburi accord. He had no business trashing it for provincial interests. If I had my way, both men should have been court martialled, tried and shot for destabilising Nigeria and causing the avoidable deaths of millions. It is a settled stand that the war was needless!!

DeepsightX:
PS: Kukutente - please dont refer me to the bible in this discussion. I dont subscribe to any religion and as far as I know the old testament is full of barbarities and aboniminations.

Referring you to the bible is a case of drawing out lessons not appealing to its humanity.

Let me also say that Francis Adewale is entitled to his opinion. Who is going to apologize to Banjo's family who was killed by Ojuku on flimsy grounds?

For the issue of Nazi Germany, they were subjected to such humiliation because they were the losing party. It is trite law that laws and legislation are not supposed to or reactive except in certain unusual circumstances. The Nazi example is further proof of what I'm pointing out about wars. Nazis were prosecuted with a reactive law while the US that nuclear bombed two cities were hailed as heroes that saved the world. USSR that lost more to the war and sustained the war for long periods was relegated to the background. Nothing is fair and straight in all these examples.

Kukutente23:
You don't get to decide what constitutes torture Mr Man. Torture is well defined by the same articles you've been posting. I've posted it here for you to read.

Secondly, I'm happy you asked yourself why aid planes flew at night. That was all on Ojuku who refused aid planes to fly in the day claiming they will be used to spy on and even poison Biafra citizens. These are his words from your Wikipedia page.

Let me avert your mind to article 15 that says both parties must agree to aids moving across and to the time and place such will occur, in other words demilitarised zones. Ojuku in effect refused demilitarised zones!! Who is the murderer now? That's why I asked you to show me an aid plane shot down. A plane flying at night over war territory is basically looking for trouble. That's what Ojuku invited. Even the man who read interviewed alluded to same thing.

As I already pointed out to you, starvation was not prohibited then as a weapon of war and even if it was, the blockade was not starvation. Ojuku had a responsibility to ensure self-sufficiency before starting a war. In the midst of the blockade, he was still getting arm supplies to prosecute his selfish war but wouldn't leave space for aid. Refer back to my quote from Plato.

Appealing to sentiments is always a valid weapon by a losing party. The Palestinians who started a war are doing same now. But war is a struggle for survival or expansion not a moral expedition. The same West who came up with all these Conventions don't even obey it. George Bush and Tony Blair are still going about as if nothing happened in Iraq. ICC just got sanctioned by the US Congress for declaring Netanyahu wanted.

In all these, what I get as underlying all these is a disgust at Awolowo for helping Nigeria win the war. I bet if Awolowo had chosen sides with Biafra and given any idea, none of you will blink for a moment as to the proprietary or otherwise of the idea. You'll probably hail him a hero! Meanwhile, the two characters who are most at fault for the war are Gowon and Ojuku. Both were egotistical maniacs who elevated personal nuances into territorial fisticuffs. Ojuku, an otherwise brilliant and educated soldier, probably the most educated then should have averted his mind to Plato's words. Biafra had no diplomatic mileage or internal strength to survive a war with a well established entity like Nigeria. There was no chance of victory yet he went headlong into it. Gowon should have stuck with the Aburi accord. He had no business trashing it for provincial interests. If I had my way, both men should have been court martialled, tried and shot for destabilising Nigeria and causing the avoidable deaths of millions. It is a settled stand that the war was needless!!

You know, as much as I disagree with you, I enjoy reading from you. I like the way you try to marshall your points coherently.

Its Saturday morning and I am quaffing a beer alongside Potatoes and chicken, so I will come back to you in greater detail. But for now, please address my question as to crimes against humanity being inferred against Nazi Germany when no such crime had even been defined yet, talk more of made into a treaty. Does that not speak to the fact that as I have argued, certain crimes are beyond any treaty or written word.

Kukutente23:
Referring you to the bible is a case of drawing out lessons not appealing to its humanity.

Let me also say that Francis Adewale is entitled to his opinion. Who is going to apologize to Banjo's family who was killed by Ojuku on flimsy grounds?

For the issue of Nazi Germany, they were subjected to such humiliation because they were the losing party. It is trite law that laws and legislation are not supposed to or reactive except in certain unusual circumstances. The Nazi example is further proof of what I'm pointing out about wars. Nazis were prosecuted with a reactive law while the US that nuclear bombed two cities were hailed as heroes that saved the world. USSR that lost more to the war and sustained the war for long periods was relegated to the background. Nothing is fair and straight in all these examples.

I just saw this. However you yourself have made an exception with the bold.

Kukutente23:
In all these, what I get as underlying all these is a disgust at Awolowo for helping Nigeria win the war. I bet if Awolowo had chosen sides with Biafra and given any idea, none of you will blink for a moment as to the proprietary or otherwise of the idea. You'll probably hail him a hero!

Please do not descend to the level of those who presume where one comes from simply on account of one's advocacy for or against a political matter. This here looks just like that and is mildly dissapointing. I am neither Igbo nor Yoruba - and I do not support the idea of Biafra.

Peterobiisathie:
he didn’t want to commit treason because it was already in the constitution and Ojukwu deserved to be hanged that year for the offense

The main point is that Awo was never interested in secession otherwise he would have took advantage of Biafra war to go with the south west as a country because the opportunity was there instead the fuulish snake change over night to one Nigeria, who will take such unstable personality seriously? he has no dignity at all, Zik have never worked for the progress of his people Igbos, he was only interested in uniting Nigeria and the whole Africa and was never loved by the Igbos including me, i don't even want to hear that name again, few decades ago my father told me everything about that man but nothing about Biafra struggle, i get to know about Biafra war mainly here on Nairaland, Zik was a selfish man and Awo was a snake and traitor, spit

Putinofrussia:
Which means that Zik couldnt see beyond his nose just like you.

Dude you talk like a kid sometimes, since you decide to compare him to Zik, what is difference between you and Shina Rambo?

DeepsightX:
Please do not descend to the level of those who presume where one comes from simply on account of one's advocacy for or against a political matter. This here looks just like that and is mildly dissapointing. I am neither Igbo nor Yoruba - and I do not support the idea of Biafra.

I apologise. But you must agree our Eastern brothers so not do any good with this obsession with Awolowo while leaving out their own leaders who inflicted on them the worst injury.
I'm Yoruba and I don't buy a lot of BS especially from those who support Tinubu. Some of them have even called me Shinedu

But I'll tell anyone for free that Awo was the best of the three leaders see Independence. He studied Nigeria, understood Nigeria and gave very sound insights as to the survival of Nigeria and the peoples in it.
Bello was more concerned with northern Islamic supremacy that he saw everyone a rival.
Zik's head was in the wrong place believing some utopian dream of Nigeria melting to be one country with Igbo having a unique place in it.
Awo knew that Nigeria is not one and can't be, but there's possibility of the country making enough space for everyone in it.

DeepsightX:
I just saw this. However you yourself have made an exception with the bold.

But you see the imbalance right? US are heroes for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki while Nazis are villians for killing Jews and attempting territorial expansion

Kukutente23:
I apologise.

Gracious and accepted. You are a worthy discussant.

I'm Yoruba and I don't buy a lot of BS especially from those who support Tinubu. Some of them have even called me Shinedu

Hahahahahaha! Well, I have noticed your clear critique of Tinubu and it is lucid and balanced.

But I'll tell anyone for free that Awo was the best of the three leaders see Independence. He studied Nigeria, understood Nigeria and gave very sound insights as to the survival of Nigeria and the peoples in it.
Bello was more concerned with northern Islamic supremacy that he saw everyone a rival.
Zik's head was in the wrong place believing some utopian dream of Nigeria melting to be one country with Igbo having a unique place in it.
Awo knew that Nigeria is not one and can't be, but there's possibility of the country making enough space for everyone in it.

You know, Nigeria alone is more ethnically and linguistically diverse than the whole of Europe. If it took Europe centuries of war to settle down, I wonder what it will take us. The last election showed how divided we still are.

Kukutente23:
But you see the imbalance right? US are heroes for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki while Nazis are villians for killing Jews and attempting territorial expansion

The hypocrisy stinks.

To add to your point, winners always write history.

Heaven knows what history would look like in the books if Germany won.

yommen:
Devide you say? Sorry, it won't come. Look at it realistically! Igbo politicians who should be clamouring for it are lacing their pockets with Nigerian money. As usual, they are blinded by their selfish desires, just like Zik who had enough properties in Lagos and wouldn't let go of that for the freedom of his people.

You mean corrupted Igbo selected politicians? although i get your point which means we will continue to be in this mess together until further notice or when we all finally get tired, as for Zik and other Igbos who own properties all over Nigeria, i want you to know that owning properties in Lagos and other part of Nigeria means nothing because it can be sold whenever they want and it can be rent out, I own a property here where i live outside Nigeria and i can sell whenever i want and i can leave it for my children whenever i decided to relocate to Nigeria. Nigeria was never designed to work even if you give it another one million years, fact

DeepsightX:
The hypocrisy stinks.

To add to your point, winners always write history.

Heaven knows what history would look like in the books if Germany won.

Word!!