₦airaland Forum

alj harem:
so after the killing of the northern and western leaders happen (which i agree it was still peaceful) the igbo traders SHOULD NOT HAVE REJOICE AND GLOAT about them ruling nigeria

EzeUche:
Of course Nigeria should be blamed for the Civil War, by invading the Eastern Region. That invasion was an act of war by any accounts. If a nation cannot protect its citizens, then the citizens have a right to declare their own nation.

jason123:
[size=13pt]
A VERY VERY VERY ULTIMATELY DUMB STATEMENT!!! Think about it and try again . . . .[/size]

EzeUche:
That reasoning is so juvenile. But that is expected of Northerners who showed the world how juvenile they can be in South Africa with Kaita's penalty.

So, because traders were laughing supposedly, that means you should kill them? What gives a man the right to kill another man for such juvenile offense? Tell me! 

Even when I read that reasoning over again, I can see why Nigeria has not progressed. It is because the Northern mind is just a like child. We can look at Sanusi's statements to see how juvenile a Northerner can be.

houvest:
@katsumoto. Facts? What facts? More like a badly concocted cocktail of hurriedly assembled jaundiced opinions conveniently placed with information selectively  gathered with biased hindsight and intricately and conspiratorially woven together with one intent; to prove a conclusion hopefully desired. 95 per cent of recorded history and later events are disregarded and only 5 percent of prejudicial evidence are mixed together with hateful anti matter to try to form matter. But it sadly falls into shreds under the powerful search light of critical thinking and higher criticism and rationalism.

Katsumoto:
At the end of the day, each man must analyse the facts and reach a conclusion. I welcome the facts presented by Max, Nowa Omoigui, Ademoyega, Gbulie, and other historians. However, I must reach a conclusion for myself based on the facts. The facts include motive and execution of the coup.

FACTS

Motive
The constitutional conference of January 1965 in which Zik was told the extent of his powers by the military service chiefs after Zik called the Army to intervene following his stand-off with Balewa

Facts
1. Zik was absent from Nigeria when the coup took place saying that he needed to rest. His personal physician abandoned him in the Caribbean. More worryingly, Zik preferred to be on holiday while Nigeria hosted for the first time, the Commonwealth Prime Minister's conference
2. The composition of the victims - mainly Northerners and Westerners
3. The composition of the plotters - overwhelmingly Igbo
4. The opportunist attitude of Igbo politicians after the coup failed. NCNC members wanted Mbadiwe to take over as Prime Minister despite the fact that NCNC was the junior partner in the coalition with NPC. With the rejection of Mbadiwe by NPC, rightly stating that there nominated Dip Charima, should take over as PM. With no progress in the deadlock, Nwafor Orizu preferred to hand over to Ironsi on the instructions of Zik who was on 'holiday'.
5. Nzeogwu's interview with Dennis Ejindu where Nzeogwu stated that the execution of the coup in the South was tribalistic

http://maxsiollun./2008/02/20/interview-with-major-nzeogwu/

6. After murdering Balewa and some of his colleagues, Ifeajuna proceeded to have a meeting with the premier of the East, Michael Okpara, in Enugu before escaping to Ghana.
7. Captain Nwobosi stated that Zik was tipped-off by Ifeajuna. But how did Nwobosi know whether Zik was part of the plan if Ifeajuna concocted the plan and Nwobosi himself was recruited two or three days before the coup? See Oil, politics and violence: Nigeria's military coup culture (1966-1976) By Max Siollun
8. Ironsi's inability to court-martial the plotters.

Allegation
It was alleged that Zik was Ifeajuna by Ajuluchukwu (Zik's NCNC chieftain)

The evidence is overwhelming in my view

EzeUche:
Article 1 in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 15 states that everyone has the right to a nationality and that no one should be arbitrarily deprived of a nationality or denied the right to change nationality.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Nigeria declared war on a people who were fleeing a blood thirsty pogrom from backward Northerners who cannot even write their names. The same people who created Boko Haram that everyone is now complaining about it.

EzeUche:
[bYou are a DUMB BUFFOON. It is OFFICIAL[/size][/b]

Let me repeat it for you since you do not understand.

If a nation cannot protect its citizens, then the people who are impacted can form a nation of their own.

Can you comprehend fool?

jason123:
I have been relatively quiet because I see no point discussing these issues over and over again but Ezeuche's comment is scary
@Ezeuche

Why do you make subjective statements?? Why can't you EVER (For once in your supremacist life) be OBJECTIVE??
How can you say the civil war was caused by "Nigeria" invading "Nigeria" Are you saying Nigeria should not protect her territory from a seceding group?? Or Nigeria should compromise her territory because Ojukwu was unsatisfied with Nigeria despite the fact that other Leaders were killed except Igbo leaders
Also, not everyone in the East was a Biafran, some were still Nigerians . . . and carried Nigerian passports. They were FORCEFULLY included in the Biafran territory YET you are saying "Nigeria caused the war??"

Shocked is an understatement!!!

Your lack of objectivity is appalling to say the least . . .

jason123:
I knew you would come back . . .so typical  
Well, I think I have already done justice to your STUPEEED statement!!!
I'm off . . .

EzeUche:
[b]Biafra was not Nigeria. Ojukwu declared an independent nation because [/b]people ALL of the East were being targeted around Nigeria for crimes they did not commit.

The only crime a person of the east committed was that they were from the East. There is no justification in Nigeria invading a sovereign nation.

jason123:
You are an unserious person. Okay, its was okay to arrest Awo and Enahoro for treason and occupy the West but it is not okay to do the same to the East??

jason123:
I have been relatively quiet because I see no point discussing these issues over and over again but Ezeuche's comment is scary
@Ezeuche

Why do you make subjective statements?? Why can't you EVER (For once in your supremacist life) be OBJECTIVE??
How can you say the civil war was caused by "Nigeria" invading "Nigeria" Are you saying Nigeria should not protect her territory from a seceding group?? Or Nigeria should compromise her territory because Ojukwu was unsatisfied with Nigeria despite the fact that other Leaders were killed except Igbo leaders
Also, not everyone in the East was a Biafran, some were still Nigerians . . . and carried Nigerian passports. They were FORCEFULLY included in the Biafran territory YET you are saying "Nigeria caused the war??"

Shocked is an understatement!!!

Your lack of objectivity is appalling to say the least . . .

jason123:
@ Ezeuche
Nigeria has EVERY right to protect her citizens (The Annaga*, Benins, Itsekiris, Uhrobos, Ijaws etc) who were FORCEFULLY included in Biafra.
Nigeria has a right to protect her teritory. Nigeria MUST not compromise her territory boundary,NO matter the consequences
Nigeria has a right to INVADE the East and call Ojukwu for Treason!
The North had EVERY right to react that way (even though to me, it was over-done. But they wore the shoe, hence, knew where it pinched)
The West had a right to DEFEND (Not attack like Banjo and Ojukwu did BUT defend) her territory. Same with the Mid-west!

Katsumoto:
Another misconception with certain Igbo people is that they do not really understand why the Civil war was fought.

1. Gowon promulgated decree 8 in 1967 which gave Ojukwu 90% of what he desired at Aburi but Ojukwu rejected it insisting on every demand being met.

2. Nigeria was created based on the desires of certain Igbo sons despite the objections of Bello and Awo. On that principle alone, certain individuals were bent on ensuring that the East remained with Nigeria.

3. In 1957, at the consitutional conference in London, Obafemi Awolowo suggested to Zik that a secession clause be inserted into the Nigerian constitution but Zik rejected it.

Zik and Igbo gave birth to Nigeria, rejected secession clause, lost out in a power play with Bello and Akintola, organised a coup killing everyone else but their own and then wanted to leave when it didnt go their way. I have said it before and I will say it again, certain Igbo sons believe that other Nigerians are not sharp.

EzeUche:
[size=20pt]NIGERIA INVADED BIAFRA[/size]

SHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTTTAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPP DDDDDIIIIIIIIIIIAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

EzeUche:
And that is why Nigeria is crap. Everyone complains when the nation could have been dissolved earlier.

houvest:
@ katsumoto. Let me then rehash. What you wrote are not facts but opinions that have been woven together and conveniently mixed with half truths or outright falsehood to achieve a desired conclusion of making Zik culpable. It ignores a lot of recorded history and later events. It remains your opinion. How many nigerians subscribe to it? So please keep it to yourself while others keep theirs. Continuously pushing it on nl or elsewhere with out proofs at all but convenient conjectures leads to bigotory or even worse, obsession.

houvest:
@birdman and katsumoto. Assuming even assuming that your hypotheses were correct how does it lead you to the conclusion that Zik was the coup master mind if it is not bigotory. I do not have to start debating your conjectures one for one when the conclusion thereof is effective, If i were on the pc and not on phone and actually wanted to pick them one after the other i would still be harmstrung as there are no links to investigate them. They are not proven facts but are a bunch of conjectures many of which have been de bunked elsewhere even here on nl . The onus is on you to prove them true not for me to prove them false. And just quoting one book whose author does not agree with your verdict does not cut it. You are the one alleging. Prove your allegations beyond a shadow of doubt. That is what the law of evidence demands. The burden proof is on the one that alleges not on the one that denies.