The dictionary definition of a terrorist organisation is:

"An organisation that employs the use of violence to achieve a political aim"

In other words, if IPOB was using violence to achieve Biafra, it could be termed a terrorist organisation.

It should be noted that while hate speech can bring about violence, hate speech in its self is not violence. Violence has to contain an act, not just words.

IPOB has been in a few violent clashes with the police, Army and other security agencies. Because the violence was as a result of clashes and not a calculated attempt to attack, in other to achieve Biafra , it is not an act of terror.

Being involved in violence is not enough to tag one a terrorist, the person must be using the act of violence to further a political aim.

IPOB has not used violence as a way to get Biafra.

Your mumu never still do?

Hate speech in itself is not violence? Are you stupid?



I'll present 4 cases where hate speech and bullying with words have led to deaths of victims / suicide and the perpetrators were arrested.


Stop this "not violent" stereotype, makes you look even more stupid , specialists home and abroad have analyzed the activities of ipob and the agree they have the characteristics of a terrorist cell


They are organized, they have large followership, they have leaders, they have heads of units, they employ Propaganda they have a military or militia unit that's characteristics of every terrorist cell

When will you be ready to tell the simple reason why Biafra is never going to be a country or you simply expect us to swallow your jaundiced opinion about whatever you favour & didn't favour hook line n sinker ?

Depends on who's writing the dictionary

attackgat:
The dictionary definition of a terrorist organisation is:

"An organisation that employs the use of violence to achieve a political aim"

In other words, if IPOB was using violence to achieve Biafra, it could be termed a terrorist organisation.

It should be noted that while hate speech can bring about violence, hate speech in its self is not violence. Violence has to contain an act, not just words.

IPOB has been in a few violent clashes with the police, Army and other security agencies. Because the violence was as a result of clashes and not a calculated attempt to attack, in other to achieve Biafra , it is not an act of terror.

Being involved in violence is not enough to tag one a terrorist, the person must be using the act of violence to further a political aim.

IPOB has not used violence as a way to get Biafra.

Well, u have 14 working days to appeal against d proscription, before it becomes binding.

Am patiently waiting for another bomb blast,call me whatever you wish.

How can IPOB claim to represent anybody or tribe in Nigeria when such tribe already has its democratic and constitutionally recognised representation and leadership?

Not a single Igbo elected political officer has expressed a desire for Biafra. Not even the ones from Kanu's village.

The world will never recognise IPOB has anything but a miscreant group attempting to employ terrorism to usurp power in a democratic society.

Who is IPOB to decide for Igbos when an international recognised system of leadership and political representation is already existing, and such leadership has not even demanded for anything?

Who then is Nnamdi Kanu?
Does he have the constitutional authority bestowed on a local government councillor or chairman? Does he wield the representative powers of a state legislator or a federal legislator within his tribe and region? Those he possess the executive authority of a state governor within his tribe and region?

Was the Scottish demand not championed by the established and constitutional leadership of Scotland withing the UK? Was the failed Catalonian demand not championed by the existing democratic leadership of Catalonia region within Spain?

Why then does Kanu think that IPOB must be listened to nationally when it has not even won local and regional support of the Igbo political and constitutional leadership?

Can a group just come up from nowhere and begin to demand for referendum on behalf of a people that already have democratic leadership and constitutional representation who are yet to table such a demand?

IPOB is nothing and any nuisance from IPOB will be met with the constitutionally authorised fury such delusions deserve.

It is the bid to establish itself as a somewhat recognised but unconstitutional leadership, that IPOB has declared that all elections should be boycotted in Igbo land, such that when this has been achieved across all Igbo states, the IPOB can then claim to be the sole representatives and leadership of the Igbos in Nigeria, because even they know that they currently represent only noise making as far as the democratic world and UN is concerned.

Would any democratic government or the UN allow such a daylight truncation of democracy to occur by a terrorist group?

HTW

Throwback:
How can IPOB claim to represent anybody or tribe in Nigeria when such tribe already has its democratic and constitutionally recognised representation and leadership?

Not a single Igbo elected political officer has expressed a desire for Biafra. Not even the ones from Kanu's village.

The world will never recognise IPOB has anything but a miscreant group attempting to employ terrorism to usurp power in a democratic society.

Who is IPOB to decide for Igbos when an international recognised system of leadership and political representation is already existing, and such leadership has not even demanded for anything?

Who then is Nnamdi Kanu?
Does he have the constitutional authority bestowed on a local government councillor or chairman? Does he wield the representative powers of a state legislator or a federal legislator withing his tribe and region? Those he possess the executive authority of a state governor within his tribe and region?

Was the Scottish demand not championed by the established and constitutional leadership of Scotland withing the UK? Was the failed Catalonian demand not championed by the existing democratic leadership of Catalonia region within Spain?

Why then does Kanu think that IPOB must be listened to nationally when it has not even won local and regional support of the Igbo political and constitutional leadership?

Can a group just come up from nowhere and begin to demand for referendum on behalf of a people that already have democratic leadership and constitutional representation who are yet to table such a demand?

IPOB is nothing and any nuisance from IPOB will be met with the constitutionally authorised fury such delusions deserve.

IPOB may be many things but the purpose of this thread is to juudge if they are terrorist or not. It my belief that they are not

Nemesis1:
Your mumu never still do?

Hate speech in itself is not violence? Are you stupid?



I'll present 4 cases where hate speech and bullying with words have led to deaths of victims / suicide and the perpetrators were arrested.


Stop this "not violent" stereotype, makes you look even more stupid , specialists home and abroad have analyzed the activities of ipob and the agree they have the characteristics of a terrorist cell


They are organized, they have large followership, they have leaders, they have heads of units, they employ Propaganda they have a military or militia unit that's characteristics of every terrorist cell

What specialists? You mean osogbo brown hut skull miners?

attackgat:


IPOB has not used violence as a way to get Biafra.

You sound intelligent.
And, I see this everyday. How well respected, and educated Igbo men and women turn themselves to clowns when they attempt to make excuses for IPOB and Nnamdi Kanu.

Understand this, you cannot defend IPOB and Nnamdi Kanu and retain you dignity. Because , you need to constantly LIE.

Like your doing now. Everything Nnamdi Kanu has said is recorded.

TheKabal:


You sound intelligent.
And, I see this everyday. How well respected, and educated Igbo men and women turn themselves to clowns when they attempt to make excuses for IPOB and Nnamdi Kanu.

Understand this, you cannot defend IPOB and Nnamdi Kanu and retain you dignity. Because , you need to constantly LIE.

Like your doing now. Everything Nnamdi Kanu has said is recorded.

As I said earlier, spoken words, wether hate speech or not cannot be violence unless backed up by action.

Lets just assume that Nnamdi Kanu said he is going to kill everyone in Nigeria, the speech alone is not an act of violence unless he has actually started killing people.

If hates speech never translates to action, it remains hate speech. Nobody can become a terrorist by just mere talking.

attackgat:

If hates speech never translates to action, it remains hate speech. Nobody can become a terrorist by just mere talking.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Hate_speech_ENG.pdf
_{Study and grow wise, that your ventures .. selfish or selfless maybe profitable.}

If you can be convicted for hate speech, you can be convicted for terrorism by the state.

TheKabal:



http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Hate_speech_ENG.pdf
_{Study and grow wise, that your ventures .. selfish or selfless maybe profitable.}

If you can be convicted for hate speech, you can be convicted for terrorism by the state.

But nobody in IPOB has been convicted of any hate speech. Even Kanu's case is still in court. Did the judge in chambers determine that hate speech is an act of terrorism even though the definition of terrorism is that it must have an act of violence