₦airaland Forum

It is obvious that the reason none of the spectators bothered calling the police was because the Police were privy to it already. There are even allegations that their van was packed not too far away from the scene. Nigerians have lost their soul, our ability to show compassion has been brutalized by the kind of things we do to eachother. I am sure these boys were just victims of a set-up. How do you summarily condemn four people to death without any serious evidence, just mere allegations, gut feelings and suspicions. Till now, the stories keep changing, some say they were armed robbers others say they were cultist, yet there is no iota of evidence to support these claims. These boys were not armed, the items they claimed they stole were not found on them, judgement was passed on these boys based on suspicions and unsubstantiated claims and the paranioa that enveloped the villaged. The boys were victims of a paranoid community.
This is an all time low for this country. Since I watched the video, I have not been able to concentrate or do anything without thinking about the sheer brutality meted out to those boys who could have been innocent of the crimes they murdered them for. Justice must be served, and I hope it is served cold.

Jason Feather: I'm amazed & disgusted by some of the comments & homophobia here. I knew homophobia was rife in Nigeria given that the church's in Nigeria are manipulated by right wing homophobic American evangelists & their dollars!

Your emotional outburst is baseless and unfounded.
You do not have to be a Christian to abhor the homosexual lifestyle. Matter of fact, I care little about religion but will not condole homosexual conduct in any form.
And whether you like it or not, it is not allowed by law in Nigeria, your perverse moral rectitude is irrelevant, people make laws to guide their societies, it is not a subject to be left for other people's arbitrary interpretation, no one person or group can arrogate such arbitrariness to themselves be it the church or the people in the west.

Jason Feather: Many Nigerians claim to be Christian but I can't see any here. Sounds like no one follows the true teachings of Jesus, judge not lest you be judged & love thy neighbour seems to have been missed from your religious teachings!

Last time I checked, the being a christian is not hinged on loving unrepentant homosexuals, paedophiles, rapists, and armed robbers. Can you point out the part in the bible where Christ preached about loving these pervs?

Jason Feather: Being gay is not a choice in the same way that being left handed or being black or white is not a choice.

greatest lie ever sold by the LGBT pressure group.
It is obvious you have succumbed to unproven assertions of the LGBT group but sorry to punture your soufflé, it is very much a question of choice. Yes, you can choose to be gay or not or why do you think the majority of today's homosexuals were formerly heterosexual males that were busy experimenting with pervert sex that becamr habit. Mr man stop regurgitating the nonsense they feed you on western gay networks, no man is born with homosexual genes and there are no scientific research to back up such claims, if you do, please provide us with such and stop propagating the rubbish you read and hear from political pro-gay organizations.

Jason Feather: Being gay is not a choice in the same way that being left handed or being black or white is not a choice.



Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not chosen, but is the result of a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors leading to a persons sexuality. This is according to all accredited medical organizations around the world from the American Medical Association to The British royal society of psychologists etc

where the hell did you cull up such a BS??
So if tomorrow the American psychology association claims that paedophilia is a normal way of life, and lobbyists and politicians spring into action to convince ppl, it will make it ok and then you will accept, right??
Where lies your sense of decency and logical thinking, ppl should learn where to draw the line abeg!
The same APA that will go to court to seek an injunction to stop psychotherapists of National Association of Research and Treatment of Homosexuality (NARTH) from treating people who experience homosexual feelings but don't want to be tagged as such. Who takes political recommendation of APA seriously outside of America and the europe? When did the western hemisphere become the world? China still engages in heavy reparative therapy for homosexuals, they don't give a 4ck about the political motivated views of APA so abeg talk another thing.
As far as science goes, there's no concrete proof that anyone can be born gay or has some genes that turn them gay later in life. Unless of course, you, Mr Know-it-all have some irrefutable scientific facts to back up your claims, just STHU and yap about things you can understand and defend. It is not a congenital disease whose solution lies in acceptance. A majority of today's homosexuals are nurtured homosexuals that have been encourage by the likes of you.

Jason Feather: Homosexual activity is not unnatural or dysfunctional, research shows that homosexuality is an example of normal variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects.

can you please show us this research that makes such claims, I will be very interested to read it and change my views. I am an avid follower of developments in this area myself, I am yet to read anything like excerpt of course the nonsense, unproven claims in pro-gay sites and news outlet.
Allow me to quote Dr. Tahir I. Jaz, M.D., Winnipeg, Canada: "The increasing claims of being " born that way" parallels the rising political activism of gay organisations, who politicise the issue of gay origins . In the 1970s, approximately ten percent of homosexuals claimed to be "born gay" according to a large scale survey....However, in a survey in the 1980s, with the gay rights movement increasingly becoming active, thirty-five percent claimed to be born that way.

Sagamite: The normal moronic junk!

What does the bible say about homosexuality?



What research?



Show me the gay animals.



More moronic junk!

Christianity is not about love and acceptance, otherwise there would be nothing like sin.

Christianity is about following the rules and regulations of the bible.

Don't be regurgitating and spewing this moronic junk fed to you by the Western world and come here and vomiting it like if it is some intellectual breakthrough thought.

hahahahahaha. . . That was short, precise and straight to the point. I am so tired of these LGBT apologists making all sorts of moronic claims that have not been substantiated by the empirical evidence of science. Using over flogged soundbites by LGBT people like "it is not unnatural", "consenting adults", "unconditional love" and all that crappy argument they resort to, only reveals ackwardness of such claims and arguments.
How can anyone suggest that homosexualism is a natural behaviour and root such their arguments on the phoney evidences of animals having sex? That is so laughable, so animalistic behavior is now an accepted standard for human beings. We could as well go wild and kill other humans for food just so we can be clear that it is nature. What a BS!!
Even with all the prepostrous claims of God's love being unconditional, we all know such claims are for effects when standing in front of a pulpit and trying to mesmerize a congregation of a thousand people, in reality, his love is conditional and has boundaries not be crossed. .lol. .that is the reality.
All that LGBT propaganda and pressure will only convince shallow minded folks with impressionable traits not people like you and me that understand that this is just like many other man-made pervasions with set down plans to spread it through brow-beating and junk science and lies.

I hope that is better!

On the whole, you spent 10 years with the
Nigerian army. What was it like and how
did you end up in Kano?
The Nigerian army, I say this not to
denigrate anyone, is the remnant of a
force that had grown steadily from the
West African Frontier Force, until it
became, with independence, the Nigerian
army. When I was there, it was a force
with five battalions, and we were sort of
inching our way to the sixth battalion. And
every officer knew brother officers;
because of my peculiar type of education
when I came into the army after my
training I was selected to be either an
instructor, or a staff officer. But my calling
was for infantry; and if you remember a lot
of British officers had a tried approach
and really I was looked upon as that
officer that you could leave with minimal
supervision. In fact, at one stage my
annual report had these words that I was
one officer ‘‘who never served under
anybody but we all served under him.’’
Naturally, I was a senior officer my
number was 29, and I moved up every year
since my commission, and I had created
quite a bit of jealous enmity by my rapid
promotion, and that sort of alienated me
from my military colleagues. And if one
was not within range, I was a friend. The
army for effectiveness was very good
ceremonially, we were also good for
internal security actions, but I would not
vouch for its war efficiency, which you
found during the war, that the army proved
itself. It was the biggest and most
effective defoliant agent, they would
shoot through any amount of leaves, and
miss out the enemy. And for propaganda
sake people were given so much
reputation, reputation for what? And they
go about prancing about: 'we did this, we
did that,' no. We have this latent problem,
because we have been given this bullshit
about their efficiency, they began to
believe it. When I say this, I am also
recognising the limitation of my own
training as an officer. By Nigerian
standards I was some good, but I cannot
go into modern war with other people,
better trained. I was alright as an infantry
officer, I was alright as a small formation
officer. But I do not think that
internationally at the power points that I
would go beyond the command of a
brigade. That is me, so when you see
pipsqueaks prancing around as divisional
commander, core commanders, I just
laugh.
The army today is blamed for the
instability in the political system. When, in
your opinion, do you think the army began
to eye a role in the political system?
The army lost discipline with the
appointment of Yakubu Gowon. It was
Gowon that rooted indiscipline into the
Nigerian army. This is the basis of my
disagreement with the Nigerian army
officers’’ corp, nothing more than that. In a
way, it is the politicisation of the officer
corp; I have always been committed to the
professional army. We argued the
appointment of Ironsi as the major-
general, who would take over from Maj-
General Wilbe Everad, the last British
commanding officer, I maintained the
position that for the army to remain we
have to follow the natural chain of
command of the hierarchy. Despite the
disruptions of the Ifeajuna coup, we still
held together as an army. Later it became
a question of how to handle the disruption
of the demise of Ironsi. If you remember, I
had been posted to Enugu, so I was not in
Lagos to argue this. But I kept on the
telephone arguing the point, that
Ogundipe should take over; no problem
then because there was a chance of
resolving the issues. Nigeria was let down
by Ogundipe, because his action tended
to give more strength to people who
believe that anybody could be the head, at
any time; I say no to that kind of thinking.
Those who designed the military structure
knew what they where doing; when I
finally learnt that Ogundipe had fled, I did
not stop. I then proposed Adebayo, he
should take over by seniority. Then, of
course, Gowon proclaimed himself
commander over and above so many
senior officers. It is true that people
acquiesced but that was when discipline
broke down. So I was not in Lagos, but I
did what I could, but Gowon became head
of the army. The danger was that some of
those who acquiesced did not have the
guts to move across to Gowon, they
remained under command, here in the
East. That confused the whole thing, but
basically that was what the whole war
was about. The question is :Do we have an
army or don’’t we? Some people chose to
have an army of war lords, anywhere you
are, if you look outside the window and
you command more rifles you become the
boss. No, you should have a superior
loyalty; loyalty to the institution, not so
much to the men. If I had been in Lagos
we might have saved the situation; but I
had won two arguments the one that
made Ironsi the general and the one that
made him Supreme commander. I gave
him the direction the army should go, but
because I was in Enugu I was not as
effective to prevent the aberration of
Gowon being placed at the head of the
army, at the time he did.
At the time of the coup against Ironsi it
was obvious that Ogundipe did not enjoy
the support of the officers and men and
had to go?
When you use the word obvious, you
tempt into the obvious question? How do
you know, give me proof? How did it
become obvious if it had not been fed into
you. I was in the army I did not see
anything obvious, so tell me how?
Nigerians are not interested in my
thoughts it is you they want to hear?
No the point is that a lot of these things
you people take and digest, and once you
are confronted with the true situation you
are so reluctant to shift, why? When Ironsi
became head was there a military council
vote? He was appointed, he took over and
you saw the result. Ogundipe should have
taken over, why did he not. Or that he ran
away, who threatened him? And they
threatened him he ran away from being in
command, but ran into the arms of Nigeria
and became an ambassador. I am glad we
are talking about this, because this is part
of the half -baked beliefs of many
Nigerians, and it is significant they accept
these things on matters they are not
experts in. That the NCO’s were not taking
orders from Ogundipe, who are these
Non-commissioned officers. ? What rank?
I am being deliberately mischievous to
make a point. Forgive me, why should you
know! It is my profession and I wish that
you would be a little hesitant with these
statements that come from Nigeria
propaganda to legitimatise Gowon. It is
just like the propaganda that says you
have to be very careful in the North, the
North does not like Ojukwu, and you
journalists you continue saying it, when in
fact even the northerners in ANPP, and
quite a number in PDP, say if Ojukwu
stood for election side by side with Buhari
we do not know who would win. Because
we are very popular with the North of
today, but the eastern journalist of today
say, no, no the North will not do this, or do
that. And it becomes the truth of our
misguided era. No, the only way we would
have known what the reaction would have
been was for Ogundipe to take up his
position, and then we would know. Even
today, wherever I go to talk, even at the
war college they recognise the
commanding presence of their superior
officer, and that is it.
One of the reasons adduced by observers
for the July coup , is that it was a revenge
coup since the January 15 attempt was
inspired by mostly Igbo officers
(interrupts)
And Ogundipe was Igbo?
That is not the point...
That is the main point. That it was an Igbo
coup did not make it a Yoruba coup.
Between January 15 and July 29, do you
think that Ironsi had taken steps to put
back some discipline in the army, as a
way of correcting the breakdown of order
the January coup caused?
I would be very honest with you, and I
would ignore certain Nigerian
propaganda. You see we were brought up
as one Nigerian army, when the British
were pulling out they left one
commanding officer, we found ourselves
being pulled by ethno-centric forces, we
found ourselves being pulled apart. The
idea that Ironsi after serving the world as
Major-general, force commander in the
Congo, should come back to Nigeria and
be relieved of his rank sharpened the
ethnic divide of the army. Even when I
moved and argued that the important
issue was the chain of command and the
military hierarchy, the institution we
inherited we should keep it inviolate. It
was easy for many people to say, you
Ojukwu, would say that after all, you are
an Igbo man. The mere fact that when he
took over, the Nigerian army remained and
he went round and spoke to so many
people, it is possible he could have done
more. But I do not think that he saw the
danger, so he dealt with it at the level he
understood it. Ironsi, a good soldier
perhaps. I never saw him in war, but I saw
in the Congo, and the way he was
appreciated showed he had very good
military instincts. I think he did enough to
reassure everybody ,the brotherhood of
the officer corp. Enough? I saw him doing
it when he went round. But my own
personal feeling was that he did one of
the things I blame Igbo leaders, because
they always think the answer is to cry mea
culpa, mea culpa. You can do it without
accepting guilt, but he lent over
backwards accepting guilt. For example,
the appointments he made were in
accordance with our own rules, he
believed in Nigeria. Even before his death,
I told him that I did not like the
congregation of northern officers in
Benin, he said no, no ; "they are my boys".
I said yes, but it would be better because
of what has been going on that he should
try and mix them up even those around
him, but he did not. It was the same thing,
when I said there is danger these
meetings being held in Nasarawa, Kano,
our good friend JS Tarka gave me a tape
to listen to, and I gave it to him to listen
and he listened and he was quite upset.
He called Kam Salem, he gave him the
recorder and the tapes "to go and listen to
what your brothers are planning for me."
To reassure me of his solidarity with the
North, right there he dialed to speak with
Sultan Abubakar, and he spoke to him in
fluent Hausa, and all that was to convince
me that Tarka was wrong and that he was
on very close personal contact with the
Sultan, what could be better. So he did
what he could within his understanding of
the best he could.
Those who planned the coup against
Ironsi, said their grouse was decree 34
that created the unitary system and the
second was that Ironsi was reluctant to
punish the January coup plotters?
What was said that those who plotted the
coup would be investigated, I was there at
the Supreme military council(SMC).
General Ironsi said that those who were
involved would be investigated and would,
if found guilty, be charged accordingly.
But who was in charge of investigating
this matter, it was Gowon. That he did not
do it was wrong, that they then took action
after how many months, four or five
months is odd. Blaming Ironsi for a
promise unfulfilled after four months only;
you know that all of these are mere
rationalisations for their actions that they
had taken. It was because of what
happened on January 15th 1966, that we
started having difficulties, and Ironsi
decided to go round. If you notice, in his
moving round it was so anti-east that
Enugu was not even on the list for Ironsi to
visit, which was wrong. The decree 34 that
you talked about, what actually is in that
decree? The point is that I was in the
SMC, and I do not think that there was any
decree that Ironsi issued , which we in the
SMC did not sit round and we all
discussed. I know that there was a move
for the creation of a unitary government at
the SMC, but it had not being written, at
all. Nigeria was not unified that was why I
remained military governor in the east; if it
had been I would not have remained
governor in the east. The other person
they hated was FC Nwokedi; but if you
remember what the SMC told Nwokedi
and the nation was that he should go
round and discuss, and come back and
report; but the rationalisation you find is
that he had gone and reported and it was
clear a decree was going to be
promulgated, not that it had actually been
promulgated. Ironsi did not do anything to
the contrary, the government was not
unified, rather it was the civil service. How
does one command areas that he actually
had no jurisdiction over? And if they say
that is the reason for killing Ironsi, and
killing Nigeria, why is that since they have
taken over they still retained the system of
appointing governors. What the decree did
was to unify the civil service under a
military system.
At the time you were in touch with
Ogundipe, you knew Ironsi had died?
No, not officially. I had the rumour that he
had been assassinated, so I began making
contacts because I wanted to force them
out in the open so that we could start
dealing with the real situation.
It was said that you told him that if he
makes radio announcement that you
would follow from the East giving your
support, was that what you said?
It is a long time now, but I can tell you that
to establish Ironsi, was a question of
something like please, do not keep the
nation waiting. Whatever it is, now that the
rump of Tafawa Balewa government had
vested authority, you speak to the nation
and get to work. That if that happens, I
would from the north lend some support,
and the various commanding officers
would also show support. We managed it
and stabilised the situation. But this
second one, I told him I did not like the
crowd around him in Benin, the officers
were from a particular grouping; it is
possible because of the seniority he did
not identify the tendencies. I was a
Lieutenant colonel, so I was closer and I
knew their tendencies . When the
upheaval then took place, I began first to
talk to Murtala Mohammed, who was in
Ikeja, we understood each other, and what
he said to me was very straight forward
and simple: " I do not want to stay with
Nigeria. I just want us to separate the
north from Nigeria, which would mean that
we would move the northerners of a
certain standing to the north". I said to
him, if that is the case okay, go ahead
with it. But as I later on understood some
western diplomats, the British- Americans
and some permanent secretaries told
them not to break up Nigeria. I learnt they
told them everything they wanted they
now have so why leave the country. But I
said no, if we have to do it togther we
must return to the chain of command, the
hierarchy of the military. Then I started to
get in touch with Ogundipe, it was difficult
at that time, but with my own Yoruba
connections, I found him.
Apart from Ogundipe, Adebayo, who else
might it have fallen upon to lead the
army?
Ogundipe was then a full colonel. After
him, it would have fallen probably to
Bassey, who was senior to all of us, the
only person he was junior to was probably
Ironsi.
When Gowon made his national
broadcast, you followed up with your own
broadcast. Was that when you made up
your mind to secede?
I told you early that the whole question
was that we return to hierarchy as we had
it in the army. Gowon was in Lagos and he
took over, he spoke to me and I told him
no, that he can’’t take over. I made it clear
that it was not his right.
By accepting to negotiate with him at
Aburi, was that not a recognition of a fait
accompli?
I do not know what you call a fait
accompli. When you suddenly caught a
robber that invaded your house and
carried your belongings, what do you do?
You start talking with him, is that a fait
accompli? If it were a fait accompli there
would have been nothing to discuss. This
thing got accomplished at the end of the
war.
There is been the suggestion of the
rivalry between you and Gowon being a
factor(interrupts)?
I will not let you finish, because you are
feeding ideas into my mind. Please if you
have to use a little courtesy, to respect
me ,and let me know what you are talking
about.
You were administratively senior to
Gowon, even though he joined the army
two years before you did, and it is
suggested that provoked some rivalry
having him assume command?
It did not, you are the one reading that into
it. Where did you find that, there are many
people who were in the army long before
me, that I was ahead of eventually. Do you
honestly think having been to University
and gotten two degrees that would not
even have given me an advantage? It did.
There were many people who joined the
army before Gowon, it did not provoke
rivalry. What I am opposed to is to
encapsulate a national tragedy and
reduce it to a mundane level. For instance,
Col Hilary Njoku might even argue that he
was senior to me, and I might disagree,
but technically he would be right because
even though I became a lieutenant
colonel before him, by virtue of his military
seniority, he was senior to me and once
he became a lieutenant colonel, he
assumed seniority. But Gowon’s case was
a little bit different. Like you said he joined
the army two years before me, but at my
commission I had caught up with him
anyway; because I got the advantage due
to my university training. So that he was in
the army two years before me by this time
did not come into thought. I hope I have
explained myself well.
It was suggested that Decree 8
suspending the constitution and putting
into effect some of the understanding that
was reached at Aburi was promulgated
but you did not accept it, do you still
remember some of the aspects that
offended you?
If you put the decree on the table I will
look at it and tell you. As I said to you, I did
not agree with the actions taken, we
quarreled and eventually we went to war.
There must be so many things that we
could not agree on.
But it is said that some senior officers of
the army thought you should accept this
decree, even EU Apkan ,the then
Secretary of Eastern Region?
I would like to see their affirmation that
they asked me to accept Decree 8 and I
refused, certainly EU Apkan can not say
that I worked very closely with him through
out. I do not know the other senior
officers, I would be very keen to know; if
they told you anything I would like to know
so that I can know what answer to give.
We went to Aburi , the whole of the East,
more especially the army in the East were
hopeful on the agreement. But we did find
a reneging of the agreement, and you
want us to find accommodation not in line
with the agreement signed.
The National reconciliation committee led
by Awo was constituted, but you rejected
it why?
We did not accept it because the East
was not consulted. We were a federation,
that we had a dispute did not confer the
right on anyone to act arbitrarily. They
cannot just promulgate that, or this
without the East. Remember at that time it
was the North, East, West and the Mid-
west, so do I allow the East to be sealed
up before acting, or do I say if you go and
do this you are wrong? Do I say let's go
back to Aburi, let's do this or that because
it is the right of the people we are
trampling on? And whilst we are on this,
because I believe journalists have done a
terrible service to Nigeria, forgive me, but
the problem is your backed legalisms.
During that period, I was legitimate having
been duly appointed, by a duly appointed
head of state to look after the East. The
quarrel to a large extent was that nobody
of any legitimacy appointed Gowon. So
Gowon should be arguing and explaining,
what you are asking me to explain; there
was nothing illegitimate about my
appointment even Gowon knows because
Ironsi appointed me.
You met Awo on May 4th 1967, and as
part of your conversation he asked you
about your attitude of southeast leaders
to question of the North, it was said that
you responded that: " on the specific
question of whether there is a possibility
of contact with the North, the answer is at
the battle field"?
This is what I have been arguing all
morning, I mean this is another Nigerian
propaganda, that is okay. This quotation is
all wrong, I do not even speak that way. If I
am going to waste my time the least that
you can do is to play me the tape. If
people are putting out their own account, I
will write my own. But if you, on my 70th
birthday are going to ask me questions,
first you are not going to be given my
memoirs. Secondly, you are not going to
have the extracts of the book; I am going
to do what I agreed to do with you which is
to talk to you generally. If you then come
with matters that I consider false, then
before I start I would demand for the
authenticity of the claims you are making
because I am very much aware of the
burden of history. I am the final Biafran
truth, and that is why I would not be
irresponsibly dragged into areas to justify
Nigerian propaganda. Do you also know
that I released Chief Awolowo from
prison? Do you also know that I also
maintained contact with Awo that when I
had problem with Nigeria that he came to
see me in exile? Do you know that there is
nowhere in the written annals of Nigerian
history where you would see a harsh word
from me against Chief Awolowo. If you
take all these into consideration you
would find why some of your questions
are provocative. And incidentally at the
time you were talking, who was Chief
Awolowo? On the Nigerian side, who has
just been released from prison, that
Gowon sent on a mission. He did not
come to impose the federal might,
otherwise he would not have crossed the
Niger bridge.
Before the war broke out, Gowon talked
about creating the COR state ( Cross
Rivers, Ogoja and Rivers state), as a way
of reducing your area of influence. But
did you anticipate that if you went ahead
that you would still have the support of
the people of those areas?
That is a good question, but in any case as
the head of state of Biafra, what you
expect me to do is to sit beside the radio
to listen to what Gowon had to say. No.
We were running a republic of our own.
On the creation of states he had no
powers over us; remember that technically
at that time Gowon was a rebel.
In your book ‘‘ Because I am involved’’
you said of Gowon, " An aspect of him
which I found often disconcerting, was
his ability, when pushed to the wall in any
discussion, to close off his mind, to close
his door, as it were, to all logic." At Aburi
did you push him to the wall?
Aburi presented immense opportunity to
present our case before the international
community , I went there as a leader of
eastern regional faction, and it was not a
question of pushing him to the wall.
Should I tell you what I did? You judge
from what you heard... Aburi, you have the
complete transcription of what happened.
You have the record of all the discussions,
you can read with objectivity. And you sit
here after many years and ask whether I
pushed him to wall; you want to reduce
everything to personal dispute, I resent
that, I must tell you.
You and Zik never agreed?
Me and Zik never agreed? How can? Who
am I, no. He carried me on his laps when
he came back from America and visited
my father. All my life I referred to him as
Pa, my mate was his son Chukwuma. We
were not contemporaries, he might have
disagreed with my father if ever; but
remember at the Foster Sutton, it was my
father that bailed him out. So at least he
and my father were quite close, if you feel
that you are not getting all the facts no
problem, but that is the fact. I found him
amiable, and in Biafra I gave him
maximum protection, and he even led
some delegations abroad; when he found
the rings around the enclave had become
tighter he took a step when I sent on a
delegation he decided to flee to Nigeria,
so where did you get this information
about my not agreeing with him?
You removed him as Vice-chancellor of
University of Nigeria?
I removed him as Vice-chancellor for
certain reasons, but the bigger reason was
that it was the only place available to me
in an emergency; I brought in Ado Bayero
as the chancellor, it was in the midst of
the crisis and I decided that the Emir
should come here to show the positive
attitude of our people.
What particular reason do you have for
removing him?
Has he got glue to his buttocks, he had
done a good job up to that point , but the
issue as I pointed out earlier is that it
became very necessary to relieve him of
that position.
Given the way the war ended would you
have fought it differently?
Well, as I look back, I would say yes. I
would have for those battles I lost; but for
the ones I won, I would not change
anything. One of the things that I would
like to do since I came back from exile is
that I would like to hold a plebiscite, not
that it would have changed much, but that
it would have shown it was the wish of the
entire people of the southeast.
When you went into exile there are those
who thought that you would have
organised resistence to save Biafra
(interrupts)
Even today there are those in Nigeria who
still think that I am organising some
resistence.
But you did not do that why?
Because I did not think that it was
necessary. My dear young man, when you
fight a war you do what you must do to
define your war aims very clearly, and that
is what you fight for. Well, some times,
having achieved it, you might be tempted
to raise it further, but in this case my war
aim was to ensure the survival of the
Biafran people from the former threat of
genocide. In the end, many
pronouncements have shown that we
succeeded.
At the beginning of hostilities, you had
said that no power in black Africa could
stop Biafra, did you really mean it?
I am terrible sorry I will not reduce myself
to that level of discussion: ‘‘ No power in
black Africa did you really mean it?’’ There
are ways of talking; at that time with the
temper of the moment, that was it. And in
any case I proved it, not borrowed power
from Europe, I am talking about power
from Black Africa. That I had a battalion of
weapons? Everybody knew what I had , I
said even the grass would fight. Did I
mean that every blade grass would put on
a uniform and start fighting?

Katsumoto: @ rhymz

It's almost impossible for anyone to read that.

give me a minute to repost that again.

Prof Corruption: http://www.igbofocus.co.uk/The_Biafra/Biafra_News_Articles_1/Biafra_News_Article_2/I_am_the_Final_Biafran_Truth_-/i_am_the_final_biafran_truth_-_ojukwu.html

That's the link to the article. I guess

i will repost it again, this time I will try to post it well.

In your book, you said that Nigeria is
crippled by four fears: fear of change,
fear of truth, fear of unity and fear of
man. Have you discovered more fears?
The worst fear is actually the fear of unity,
at every step. As I reflect about Nigeria, I
find that one thing we all agree on is the
fear of unity. That is why I said that the
beginning of wisdom of Nigeria must be a
national conference, let us come together
around the table. Let no subject be made
a taboo, and design a Nigeria that can
accommodate all of us. Nigeria should be
restructured. You see, when I say a
national conference I never like going into
details, because I would prefer everything
to be discussed. And for everybody to
understand me, I would say if the people
of this area want a Biafra, why not? And if
some other people want an Oduduwa
republic, why should it not be discussed;
to try then to spoon feed a constitution to
the Nigerian people is wrong. And the
people who want this are the military, who
are the least qualified of the lot to do so.
And whilst we are on it, do not tell me that
every time we are changing the document
the point is that the constituion is made
for the people, not the people for the
constitution. If we have to change the
constitution every year, why not? Provided
we are easing the situation for our people,
there is nothing wrong with that.
From your book, you said about the
surrender of Biafra: " when the news of
the capitulation of Biafran forces under
Effiong reached me, first it was anger:
anger that perhaps I had been tricked into
going out on a fruitless and futile
mission." Did you mean to stay back?
My intention was to stay back, but
whether I would have stayed is another
thing. We like to beat our chest and be the
great baboon, pillars of courage; but I do
not know what I would have done. The
intention was to stay.
You described Obasanjo in our book this
way: ‘‘Here was a man who without being
a great statesman in his time grew to
become the greatest elder statesman of
his time, what is your view of this
statement now?’’
I repudiate it. I think I do so unabashedly,
because in my latest statement I said
Obasanjo is a fraud, and I think that
captures him better than anything else I
have said. He is not that which he
presents himself to be. He is not a civilian;
he is not a democrat; he is not a Nigerian.
He is not a Yoruba as such.
You wrote in your book, that: ‘‘ we treat
electoral opponents as malicious enemies
instead of as persons with opposing view
points.’’ Do you today feel vindicated?
Yes, I do feel vindicated. Election
opponents in Enugu here are being hunted
by assassins. In Anambra, it is not much
better. In Abia, it is not better.
Do you think that the civilians have re-
imposed order over the army?
Not so long ago, when I said to you that
Obasanjo is a fraud, I indicated that he
says he is a civilian, but he is not. When
you say whether the civilians have control
over the army, I say to you that it has not
been tested. The Obasanjo regime, in my
view, is not totally civilian. All his
massacres are military, he clearly gave
orders to some people and they carried
them out. So it is difficult for me to say
right now that they are under civilian
control. But once we get to the
constitutional conference, procedure
would be established for better control of
the armed forces.
Do you have some ideas that you may
like to share with us?
In the constitutional conference, it would
be a passionate interest of mine to serve
in the group that would try to cage that
beast called the army. You see the army
came out of the barracks in 1966, it would
be duty of all patriotic Nigerians to see
that the army is caged back to their
barracks again. They have to be made
professional again, what you have today
are an officer corps of land lords. No
efficient army can run with land lords in
command, and at the end of each month
they had to go back to the town to collect
their rents. The army in Nigeria is a heavy
burden to the national economy, and this
is so because of black mail. I have argued
for years that the army can be made
productive, but people do not believe me,
they prefer we continue the colonial all-
consuming army. And this does not fit well
into the economy of a third world country.
They should be divested of their obvious
intimidatory role. For instance, a soldier
can only be in uniform whenever he is on
duty, and if he is moving from barracks to
duty other arrangements could be made.
But one thing I will not support is an army
in uniform on the roads, and on foot
carrying weapons it is intimidating, and
when they are hungry, to extort, and when
they feel randy, to rape. I am saying this
not as an accusation, because whatever I
say about the army affects me. But I am
saying this to point these loopholes out to
the new commanders of today. A lot of
privileges you can grant the army, you do
so because you look at them not as super
humans. The Nigerian army has to be
drastically restructured. When we were
being trained, we were told that as soon
as you have taken part in a coup, the
entire force is disbanded, and then you
build a new army whether it is a battalion,
a brigade. What has happened is that in
Nigeria they have tried to cover up
treason. What right has Theophilus
Danjuma, to butcher his general officer
commanding in Ibadan, what right? What
right has Gowon to benefit from such a
crime, what right? The things they did led
us to a grotesque situation where for six
months Nigeria was being ruled from a
grave. Murtala Mohammed was effective
dead and buried in the grave, while an
inscription was in every wall as part of
Murtala- Obasanjo regime; Obasanjo did
not have the courage to repudiate it, it
was grotesque, but we had it.
On this Danjuma’s role there is the view
that says killing Ironsi was not part of the
plot, but at Ibadan the NCOs pushed him
aside and then took Ironsi and killed him?
My answer is that you are either a
commander or your are not. And I loathe
this situation where those who committed
crime remain faceless. Is there any book
where you have been told which NCOs
pushed (him) aside, and he went on to
benefit from that act. And would you tell
me which NCO reinstated him?
What message do you have for Nigerians
at your 70th birthday?
I want to thank every Nigerian for one
thing or the other, contributing to making
my day a success. The situation in Nigeria
is very bad, but I want to assure them that
it is not a situation that is irreparable, it
can be repaired. It requires wisdom and
wit. Whereas some people say we are one
nation, I want to tell my country men and
women that we are not. We are an
agglomeration of people seeking to
become one nation, the search for one
nation has become very valid. We have
not arrived there and the only way we can
get there is through a sovereign national
conference. We need and should design
and re-design a polity that accommodates
not one group but everybody. My fellow
country men and women, I have a strong
belief that we can make it. What has
transpired in the past is an aberration; the
concept that, might is right, is an
aberration. It is only through a national
conference that we can create a Nigerian
of ourselves, instead of patching it up . My
beloved people I believe that together we
can make it.

CyberG: For goodness sake, can't you put paragraphs in your post? Funny, but some people claim they are educated?

You are worse than a slow poke if you can't figure out what an excerpt means, fool. I copied it from a news site and pasted here on NL using a phone, if you had any sense, you would have figured that out. Concern yourself with what the man said in the interview and not diversionary cheap insults that only makes you look more stewpid!

rhymz: On the whole, you spent 10 years with the Nigerian army. What was it like and how did you end up in Kano? The Nigerian army, I say this not to denigrate anyone, is the remnant of a force that had grown steadily from the West African Frontier Force, until it became, with independence, the Nigerian army. When I was there, it was a force with five battalions, and we were sort of inching our way to the sixth battalion. And every officer knew brother officers; because of my peculiar type of education when I came into the army after my training I was selected to be either an instructor, or a staff officer. But my calling was for infantry; and if you remember a lot of British officers had a tried approach and really I was looked upon as that officer that you could leave with minimal supervision. In fact, at one stage my annual report had these words that I was one officer ‘‘who never served under anybody but we all served under him.’’ Naturally, I was a senior officer my number was 29, and I moved up every year since my commission, and I had created quite a bit of jealous enmity by my rapid promotion, and that sort of alienated me from my military colleagues. And if one was not within range, I was a friend. The army for effectiveness was very good ceremonially, we were also good for internal security actions, but I would not vouch for its war efficiency, which you found during the war, that the army proved itself. It was the biggest and most effective defoliant agent, they would shoot through any amount of leaves, and miss out the enemy. And for propaganda sake people were given so much reputation, reputation for what? And they go about prancing about: 'we did this, we did that,' no. We have this latent problem, because we have been given this bullshit about their efficiency, they began to believe it. When I say this, I am also recognising the limitation of my own training as an officer. By Nigerian standards I was some good, but I cannot go into modern war with other people, better trained. I was alright as an infantry officer, I was alright as a small formation officer. But I do not think that internationally at the power points that I would go beyond the command of a brigade. That is me, so when you see pipsqueaks prancing around as divisional commander, core commanders, I just laugh. The army today is blamed for the instability in the political system. When, in your opinion, do you think the army began to eye a role in the political system? The army lost discipline with the appointment of Yakubu Gowon. It was Gowon that rooted indiscipline into the Nigerian army. This is the basis of my disagreement with the Nigerian army officers’’ corp, nothing more than that. In a way, it is the politicisation of the officer corp; I have always been committed to the professional army. We argued the appointment of Ironsi as the major- general, who would take over from Maj- General Wilbe Everad, the last British commanding officer, I maintained the position that for the army to remain we have to follow the natural chain of command of the hierarchy. Despite the disruptions of the Ifeajuna coup, we still held together as an army. Later it became a question of how to handle the disruption of the demise of Ironsi. If you remember, I had been posted to Enugu, so I was not in Lagos to argue this. But I kept on the telephone arguing the point, that Ogundipe should take over; no problem then because there was a chance of resolving the issues. Nigeria was let down by Ogundipe, because his action tended to give more strength to people who believe that anybody could be the head, at any time; I say no to that kind of thinking. Those who designed the military structure knew what they where doing; when I finally learnt that Ogundipe had fled, I did not stop. I then proposed Adebayo, he should take over by seniority. Then, of course, Gowon proclaimed himself commander over and above so many senior officers. It is true that people acquiesced but that was when discipline broke down. So I was not in Lagos, but I did what I could, but Gowon became head of the army. The danger was that some of those who acquiesced did not have the guts to move across to Gowon, they remained under command, here in the East. That confused the whole thing, but basically that was what the whole war was about. The question is :Do we have an army or don’’t we? Some people chose to have an army of war lords, anywhere you are, if you look outside the window and you command more rifles you become the boss. No, you should have a superior loyalty; loyalty to the institution, not so much to the men. If I had been in Lagos we might have saved the situation; but I had won two arguments the one that made Ironsi the general and the one that made him Supreme commander. I gave him the direction the army should go, but because I was in Enugu I was not as effective to prevent the aberration of Gowon being placed at the head of the army, at the time he did. At the time of the coup against Ironsi it was obvious that Ogundipe did not enjoy the support of the officers and men and had to go? When you use the word obvious, you tempt into the obvious question? How do you know, give me proof? How did it become obvious if it had not been fed into you. I was in the army I did not see anything obvious, so tell me how? Nigerians are not interested in my thoughts it is you they want to hear? No the point is that a lot of these things you people take and digest, and once you are confronted with the true situation you are so reluctant to shift, why? When Ironsi became head was there a military council vote? He was appointed, he took over and you saw the result. Ogundipe should have taken over, why did he not. Or that he ran away, who threatened him? And they threatened him he ran away from being in command, but ran into the arms of Nigeria and became an ambassador. I am glad we are talking about this, because this is part of the half -baked beliefs of many Nigerians, and it is significant they accept these things on matters they are not experts in. That the NCO’s were not taking orders from Ogundipe, who are these Non-commissioned officers. ? What rank? I am being deliberately mischievous to make a point. Forgive me, why should you know! It is my profession and I wish that you would be a little hesitant with these statements that come from Nigeria propaganda to legitimatise Gowon. It is just like the propaganda that says you have to be very careful in the North, the North does not like Ojukwu, and you journalists you continue saying it, when in fact even the northerners in ANPP, and quite a number in PDP, say if Ojukwu stood for election side by side with Buhari we do not know who would win. Because we are very popular with the North of today, but the eastern journalist of today say, no, no the North will not do this, or do that. And it becomes the truth of our misguided era. No, the only way we would have known what the reaction would have been was for Ogundipe to take up his position, and then we would know. Even today, wherever I go to talk, even at the war college they recognise the commanding presence of their superior officer, and that is it. One of the reasons adduced by observers for the July coup , is that it was a revenge coup since the January 15 attempt was inspired by mostly Igbo officers (interrupts) And Ogundipe was Igbo? That is not the point... That is the main point. That it was an Igbo coup did not make it a Yoruba coup. Between January 15 and July 29, do you think that Ironsi had taken steps to put back some discipline in the army, as a way of correcting the breakdown of order the January coup caused? I would be very honest with you, and I would ignore certain Nigerian propaganda. You see we were brought up as one Nigerian army, when the British were pulling out they left one commanding officer, we found ourselves being pulled by ethno-centric forces, we found ourselves being pulled apart. The idea that Ironsi after serving the world as Major-general, force commander in the Congo, should come back to Nigeria and be relieved of his rank sharpened the ethnic divide of the army. Even when I moved and argued that the important issue was the chain of command and the military hierarchy, the institution we inherited we should keep it inviolate. It was easy for many people to say, you Ojukwu, would say that after all, you are an Igbo man. The mere fact that when he took over, the Nigerian army remained and he went round and spoke to so many people, it is possible he could have done more. But I do not think that he saw the danger, so he dealt with it at the level he understood it. Ironsi, a good soldier perhaps. I never saw him in war, but I saw in the Congo, and the way he was appreciated showed he had very good military instincts. I think he did enough to reassure everybody ,the brotherhood of the officer corp. Enough? I saw him doing it when he went round. But my own personal feeling was that he did one of the things I blame Igbo leaders, because they always think the answer is to cry mea culpa, mea culpa. You can do it without accepting guilt, but he lent over backwards accepting guilt. For example, the appointments he made were in accordance with our own rules, he believed in Nigeria. Even before his death, I told him that I did not like the congregation of northern officers in Benin, he said no, no ; "they are my boys". I said yes, but it would be better because of what has been going on that he should try and mix them up even those around him, but he did not. It was the same thing, when I said there is danger these meetings being held in Nasarawa, Kano, our good friend JS Tarka gave me a tape to listen to, and I gave it to him to listen and he listened and he was quite upset. He called Kam Salem, he gave him the recorder and the tapes "to go and listen to what your brothers are planning for me." To reassure me of his solidarity with the North, right there he dialed to speak with Sultan Abubakar, and he spoke to him in fluent Hausa, and all that was to convince me that Tarka was wrong and that he was on very close personal contact with the Sultan, what could be better. So he did what he could within his understanding of the best he could. Those who planned the coup against Ironsi, said their grouse was decree 34 that created the unitary system and the second was that Ironsi was reluctant to punish the January coup plotters? What was said that those who plotted the coup would be investigated, I was there at the Supreme military council(SMC). General Ironsi said that those who were involved would be investigated and would, if found guilty, be charged accordingly. But who was in charge of investigating this matter, it was Gowon. That he did not do it was wrong, that they then took action after how many months, four or five months is odd. Blaming Ironsi for a promise unfulfilled after four months only; you know that all of these are mere rationalisations for their actions that they had taken. It was because of what happened on January 15th 1966, that we started having difficulties, and Ironsi decided to go round. If you notice, in his moving round it was so anti-east that Enugu was not even on the list for Ironsi to visit, which was wrong. The decree 34 that you talked about, what actually is in that decree? The point is that I was in the SMC, and I do not think that there was any decree that Ironsi issued , which we in the SMC did not sit round and we all discussed. I know that there was a move for the creation of a unitary government at the SMC, but it had not being written, at all. Nigeria was not unified that was why I remained military governor in the east; if it had been I would not have remained governor in the east. The other person they hated was FC Nwokedi; but if you remember what the SMC told Nwokedi and the nation was that he should go round and discuss, and come back and report; but the rationalisation you find is that he had gone and reported and it was clear a decree was going to be promulgated, not that it had actually been promulgated. Ironsi did not do anything to the contrary, the government was not unified, rather it was the civil service. How does one command areas that he actually had no jurisdiction over? And if they say that is the reason for killing Ironsi, and killing Nigeria, why is that since they have taken over they still retained the system of appointing governors. What the decree did was to unify the civil service under a military system. At the time you were in touch with Ogundipe, you knew Ironsi had died? No, not officially. I had the rumour that he had been assassinated, so I began making contacts because I wanted to force them out in the open so that we could start dealing with the real situation. It was said that you told him that if he makes radio announcement that you would follow from the East giving your support, was that what you said? It is a long time now, but I can tell you that to establish Ironsi, was a question of something like please, do not keep the nation waiting. Whatever it is, now that the rump of Tafawa Balewa government had vested authority, you speak to the nation and get to work. That if that happens, I would from the north lend some support, and the various commanding officers would also show support. We managed it and stabilised the situation. But this second one, I told him I did not like the crowd around him in Benin, the officers were from a particular grouping; it is possible because of the seniority he did not identify the tendencies. I was a Lieutenant colonel, so I was closer and I knew their tendencies . When the upheaval then took place, I began first to talk to Murtala Mohammed, who was in Ikeja, we understood each other, and what he said to me was very straight forward and simple: " I do not want to stay with Nigeria. I just want us to separate the north from Nigeria, which would mean that we would move the northerners of a certain standing to the north". I said to him, if that is the case okay, go ahead with it. But as I later on understood some western diplomats, the British- Americans and some permanent secretaries told them not to break up Nigeria. I learnt they told them everything they wanted they now have so why leave the country. But I said no, if we have to do it togther we must return to the chain of command, the hierarchy of the military. Then I started to get in touch with Ogundipe, it was difficult at that time, but with my own Yoruba connections, I found him. Apart from Ogundipe, Adebayo, who else might it have fallen upon to lead the army? Ogundipe was then a full colonel. After him, it would have fallen probably to Bassey, who was senior to all of us, the only person he was junior to was probably Ironsi. When Gowon made his national broadcast, you followed up with your own broadcast. Was that when you made up your mind to secede? I told you early that the whole question was that we return to hierarchy as we had it in the army. Gowon was in Lagos and he took over, he spoke to me and I told him no, that he can’’t take over. I made it clear that it was not his right. By accepting to negotiate with him at Aburi, was that not a recognition of a fait accompli? I do not know what you call a fait accompli. When you suddenly caught a robber that invaded your house and carried your belongings, what do you do? You start talking with him, is that a fait accompli? If it were a fait accompli there would have been nothing to discuss. This thing got accomplished at the end of the war. There is been the suggestion of the rivalry between you and Gowon being a factor(interrupts)? I will not let you finish, because you are feeding ideas into my mind. Please if you have to use a little courtesy, to respect me ,and let me know what you are talking about. You were administratively senior to Gowon, even though he joined the army two years before you did, and it is suggested that provoked some rivalry having him assume command? It did not, you are the one reading that into it. Where did you find that, there are many people who were in the army long before me, that I was ahead of eventually. Do you honestly think having been to University and gotten two degrees that would not even have given me an advantage? It did. There were many people who joined the army before Gowon, it did not provoke rivalry. What I am opposed to is to encapsulate a national tragedy and reduce it to a mundane level. For instance, Col Hilary Njoku might even argue that he was senior to me, and I might disagree, but technically he would be right because even though I became a lieutenant colonel before him, by virtue of his military seniority, he was senior to me and once he became a lieutenant colonel, he assumed seniority. But Gowon’s case was a little bit different. Like you said he joined the army two years before me, but at my commission I had caught up with him anyway; because I got the advantage due to my university training. So that he was in the army two years before me by this time did not come into thought. I hope I have explained myself well. It was suggested that Decree 8 suspending the constitution and putting into effect some of the understanding that was reached at Aburi was promulgated but you did not accept it, do you still remember some of the aspects that offended you? If you put the decree on the table I will look at it and tell you. As I said to you, I did not agree with the actions taken, we quarreled and eventually we went to war. There must be so many things that we could not agree on. But it is said that some senior officers of the army thought you should accept this decree, even EU Apkan ,the then Secretary of Eastern Region? I would like to see their affirmation that they asked me to accept Decree 8 and I refused, certainly EU Apkan can not say that I worked very closely with him through out. I do not know the other senior officers, I would be very keen to know; if they told you anything I would like to know so that I can know what answer to give. We went to Aburi , the whole of the East, more especially the army in the East were hopeful on the agreement. But we did find a reneging of the agreement, and you want us to find accommodation not in line with the agreement signed. The National reconciliation committee led by Awo was constituted, but you rejected it why? We did not accept it because the East was not consulted. We were a federation, that we had a dispute did not confer the right on anyone to act arbitrarily. They cannot just promulgate that, or this without the East. Remember at that time it was the North, East, West and the Mid- west, so do I allow the East to be sealed up before acting, or do I say if you go and do this you are wrong? Do I say let's go back to Aburi, let's do this or that because it is the right of the people we are trampling on? And whilst we are on this, because I believe journalists have done a terrible service to Nigeria, forgive me, but the problem is your backed legalisms. During that period, I was legitimate having been duly appointed, by a duly appointed head of state to look after the East. The quarrel to a large extent was that nobody of any legitimacy appointed Gowon. So Gowon should be arguing and explaining, what you are asking me to explain; there was nothing illegitimate about my appointment even Gowon knows because Ironsi appointed me. You met Awo on May 4th 1967, and as part of your conversation he asked you about your attitude of southeast leaders to question of the North, it was said that you responded that: " on the specific question of whether there is a possibility of contact with the North, the answer is at the battle field"? This is what I have been arguing all morning, I mean this is another Nigerian propaganda, that is okay. This quotation is all wrong, I do not even speak that way. If I am going to waste my time the least that you can do is to play me the tape. If people are putting out their own account, I will write my own. But if you, on my 70th birthday are going to ask me questions, first you are not going to be given my memoirs. Secondly, you are not going to have the extracts of the book; I am going to do what I agreed to do with you which is to talk to you generally. If you then come with matters that I consider false, then before I start I would demand for the authenticity of the claims you are making because I am very much aware of the burden of history. I am the final Biafran truth, and that is why I would not be irresponsibly dragged into areas to justify Nigerian propaganda. Do you also know that I released Chief Awolowo from prison? Do you also know that I also maintained contact with Awo that when I had problem with Nigeria that he came to see me in exile? Do you know that there is nowhere in the written annals of Nigerian history where you would see a harsh word from me against Chief Awolowo. If you take all these into consideration you would find why some of your questions are provocative. And incidentally at the time you were talking, who was Chief Awolowo? On the Nigerian side, who has just been released from prison, that Gowon sent on a mission. He did not come to impose the federal might, otherwise he would not have crossed the Niger bridge. Before the war broke out, Gowon talked about creating the COR state ( Cross Rivers, Ogoja and Rivers state), as a way of reducing your area of influence. But did you anticipate that if you went ahead that you would still have the support of the people of those areas? That is a good question, but in any case as the head of state of Biafra, what you expect me to do is to sit beside the radio to listen to what Gowon had to say. No. We were running a republic of our own. On the creation of states he had no powers over us; remember that technically at that time Gowon was a rebel. In your book ‘‘ Because I am involved’’ you said of Gowon, " An aspect of him which I found often disconcerting, was his ability, when pushed to the wall in any discussion, to close off his mind, to close his door, as it were, to all logic." At Aburi did you push him to the wall? Aburi presented immense opportunity to present our case before the international community , I went there as a leader of eastern regional faction, and it was not a question of pushing him to the wall. Should I tell you what I did? You judge from what you heard... Aburi, you have the complete transcription of what happened. You have the record of all the discussions, you can read with objectivity. And you sit here after many years and ask whether I pushed him to wall; you want to reduce everything to personal dispute, I resent that, I must tell you. You and Zik never agreed? Me and Zik never agreed? How can? Who am I, no. He carried me on his laps when he came back from America and visited my father. All my life I referred to him as Pa, my mate was his son Chukwuma. We were not contemporaries, he might have disagreed with my father if ever; but remember at the Foster Sutton, it was my father that bailed him out. So at least he and my father were quite close, if you feel that you are not getting all the facts no problem, but that is the fact. I found him amiable, and in Biafra I gave him maximum protection, and he even led some delegations abroad; when he found the rings around the enclave had become tighter he took a step when I sent on a delegation he decided to flee to Nigeria, so where did you get this information about my not agreeing with him? You removed him as Vice-chancellor of University of Nigeria? I removed him as Vice-chancellor for certain reasons, but the bigger reason was that it was the only place available to me in an emergency; I brought in Ado Bayero as the chancellor, it was in the midst of the crisis and I decided that the Emir should come here to show the positive attitude of our people. What particular reason do you have for removing him? Has he got glue to his buttocks, he had done a good job up to that point , but the issue as I pointed out earlier is that it became very necessary to relieve him of that position. Given the way the war ended would you have fought it differently? Well, as I look back, I would say yes. I would have for those battles I lost; but for the ones I won, I would not change anything. One of the things that I would like to do since I came back from exile is that I would like to hold a plebiscite, not that it would have changed much, but that it would have shown it was the wish of the entire people of the southeast. When you went into exile there are those who thought that you would have organised resistence to save Biafra (interrupts) Even today there are those in Nigeria who still think that I am organising some resistence. But you did not do that why? Because I did not think that it was necessary. My dear young man, when you fight a war you do what you must do to define your war aims very clearly, and that is what you fight for. Well, some times, having achieved it, you might be tempted to raise it further, but in this case my war aim was to ensure the survival of the Biafran people from the former threat of genocide. In the end, many pronouncements have shown that we succeeded. At the beginning of hostilities, you had said that no power in black Africa could stop Biafra, did you really mean it? I am terrible sorry I will not reduce myself to that level of discussion: ‘‘ No power in black Africa did you really mean it?’’ There are ways of talking; at that time with the temper of the moment, that was it. And in any case I proved it, not borrowed power from Europe, I am talking about power from Black Africa. That I had a battalion of weapons? Everybody knew what I had , I said even the grass would fight. Did I mean that every blade grass would put on a uniform and start fighting? When you came back people expected you to play the oracle, but you said you would not; the present crisis of leadership in Igbo land has been traced to that fact, do you agree? There is no doubt that some people want me to play the oracle, but I do not look like an oracle. I remember telling the people that I am not a politician, but it is there well-being in the North, West and elsewhere that forces me into their defense, but if they want me to stop they should withdraw and come to the East; and not every time you would shout and complain that you’’ve been massacred, that their shops have been destroyed and looted you look for me. So, for as long as they are out there they need protection from here, that was what I said. And then finally, I enjoy talking to you, I really do; but I wish that you did a lot more reading. But tell me actually, what leader in history had gone into exile, and returned with certain youthfulness and then became an oracle? When you say something you should be able to say like x, or z, tell me?

Interesting excerpts from Ojukwu's interviews

Thesame nonsense from the usual suspects. After all said and done, innocent lives were lost. Chinua Achebe captured my thoughts exactly, how can a leader with moral decency suggest a starvation policy that will largely affect innocent by-standers of the war on the other side of the divide as a means to winning the war. After all, it was a civil war, a war to keep the country intact, or was it just a mere assumption to hide the real intents of the war?
If it was to stop the eastern region from seceeding then why the starvation policy? Was the Nigerian side under any serious threat of annihilation from Biafra to resort to extreme measures to stop the eastern region or was it just a case of pure inherent hate, opportunism, and sheer callousness on the side of the Nigerian government and her collaborators ganging up against a region whose dominant tribe they tacitly loathe in silence.
It is even more unfortunate that the collaborators instead of showing remorse and regrets for their bias and opportunistic involvment to further their own cause, have continued to be in denial, they will lie, revise history and even spin suggestive statements as facts just to cover up their hypocrisy and backstabbing antics.
I don't have a problem with Awolowo making statements like "all is fair in war" or "why feed our enemies fat to fight harder", in fact, he revealed his true feelings through the latter statement, when he called the Biafran side, "enemies" even though he hypocritically put up appearance as a neutral mediator trying to talk sense into the actors of the war, my grouse is the open denial from these collaborators posing as some mediators. This same inherent hatred from many past Yoruba leaders is seen even in present day Yoruba people, they are so quick to downplay the severity of the pogrom that had Hausa men and women having a feel time killing innocent Igbo people living in the north en mass all because some of their leaders were killed by an igbo dominated coup plot. Instead of condemnation by these hypocrits, all they do is try to rationalize such actions. It is like rationalizing Igbos resorting to killing every hausa person in the east because BH boys continue to kill their kiths and kins in senseless attacks.
Achebe was even being diplomatic with words in the way he described Awolowo, the fact is that he was fully aware of the fall out of his policies towards the igbos, he saw the war as an opportunity to deal a big blow on the Igbos' influence and their interest all over Nigeria. His 20 nigeria pounds policy was deliberate, only a dishonest Yoruba person will expect the Igbos to be full of praise of Awolowo, a man that continued to churn out policies to undermine them even after their utter loss of the war. Awolowo no doubt was a hero to the Yoruba people but to others, especially the Igbos, his sense of moral decency had tribalistic colours and shades, he was good no doubt to the Yoruba race but animalistic to other Nigerians that were not Yoruba. Don't blame them if they point out to these streaks.

Sagamite: Well said jor!

It is when they stop making it private that they normally get attacked in Nigeria.

Prior to the Western propaganda to promote and force acceptance of homosexuality in Africa, I had never heard of a gay person being attacked in Nigeria for looking gay. They were just ignored.

As in eh, there is too much propaganda flying around. Imagine the lawyer claiming that he will be killed if he was deported to Nigeria, like say dem dey write the thing for their forehead.
Matter of fact, there are a lot of impressionable Nigerians experimenting with the habit in the closet of their rooms and house. People suspect them but have not done anything to them so long as they don't try to rub it off anyone's face. You only get mugged or harassed when you start stretching it outside of your comfort zone.

[quote author=mr.drizzy]i just hope u aint one,bt if u wonna knw wheather they do kill go to adamawa nd shout "i am gay" ded u will knw if they kill[/quote]shut that dirty hole in your face if you lack the capacity to understand anything.
Do you think everyone here is your mate or have thesame below average I.Q like you? Next time learn next to quote me again, you slowpoke

Zico0: 'fcuz, i bleve in bein gud doin right nd keepin a clean hrt.If derez God,fyn. If der iznt no probs. Tho i knw hardwork is tied to sum force sumwer.Sumtymes yu do evrythin but.. Hweva,yet, i take no restraint .Let no1 confine yur thought. I dnt bleve in makin my decisions arnd tha guidelines of anoda man.I respect life nd tha power dat keeps it.Sumtyms yu jus cnt fight it, dats wen yu knw.

I don't seem to understand what you are trying to convey as your statement is rife with incoherent contradictions. "You don't believe in making your decisions around the guidelines of another man", realy? So the guidelines in the bible are what? Who do you think chose all the gospels, epistles and testaments of your bible that you so hold up as the divine words of some divine entity, extraterrestial aliens??
I doubt you any idea of what you are yapping about sef cos if you do, you will understand how confined your thought process is.
And don't try to pass the wrong impression that a person that do not believe in God is some evil person that has no respect for life, that line of argument is dumb. In fact, if you have not learnt any lesson from people like Oyedepo, it is the fact that being good, compassionate and loving has nothing to do with religious pity but the human essense and nature. The man is obviously a savvy but ruthless business man that puts profits first before human emotions, you will have to admit looking at his business models and actions.
Anybody can be goodhearted whether you are a christian monk or a devout humanist that cares little or nothing about organized belief systems and religions.
So again, I ask, what where you on about??

justwise: Indeed, what reputable Nigerian newspaper are you talking about?

is that supposed to be a rhetorical question?
Your story did not even have any link to it, any gay apologist could have written the story and posted it on a blogsite to be copied as news on other forums like Nairaland and facebook.

[quote author=Dudu_Negro]Im looking at the title to this topic and asking myself, is it wrong to love oneself......and if he was Yoruba leader why should he not love his people?

This book may explain the bottom reason why Igbo leaders declare political loyalty to non-igbos and it would likewise throw light into understanding why igbos genrally put the love of other lands above their own alaigbo.........loving oneself and loving one's people and land is a foreign and strange concept to them.

Who could reveal this better than Chinua........yes, please let me know when its available free in googlebooks.[/quote]it appears you are itching for some ignorant Igbo vs Yoruba internet cat fight with your inciting BS.

justwise: https://www.nairaland.com/1010761/gay-man-killed-mob-island

that story looks like some concocted BS from Hint Magazine and its likes.
Again, I am yet to read any formal report from any reputable news outlet where it is reported that homosexuals were jailed or killed in Nigeria just on the suspicion that they were gay. Reports like this one wreaks of mediocre fairy tale concocted BS.

I realy will love to read this book or possibly get the PDF when it becomes available.

traeces: I imagine you must think of yourself as very intelligent & well read. I really don't know about that but my heart goes out to You.
Although i usually don't involve in this kind of talk but i feel a very strong need to offer you & others like u a paradigm shift hence this reply.
First of all, God is neither a concept nor a creation of anybodies' imagination. God is a very real person that myself & countless others have had the privilege of walking & talking with. I feel him far more intimately than i feel anything in this physical world...
I've got so much more for you but lets continue from goldtraeces@gmail.com.
Thanks

I realy do not understand what your true intentions are when you dropped your unsolicited e-mail but you defeated that purpose the moment you tried to sound condescending and "all knowing" like the other Christian egomaniacs.
So typical of you religious zealots to comment about your deities with so much empty braggadocio and blind arrogance, arrogating to yourselves some divine esoteric knowledge unknown to people who do not share your christian beliefs or ideologies.
You will do well to comment on things you can actually defend with concrete proof and evidence and not some over-borrowed sound bites used by 21st centuries Pastors to humanize and exaggerate what they call "God".
If you have got anything to say to the contrary, please do, I am ever ready to intelligently defend my stance and beliefs on this issue. If all you have got is to throw up childish temper tantrums at comments you do not agree with then knock yourself out, you have the entire cyberspace to yourself, be my guest!

Pile of Crap!
How can they say he will die if he is deported to Nigeria, how na!!
Like seriously, how many Nigerians have been killed or jailed for being gay?
Lets be clear here, nobody gives a 4ck what anyone does in the privacy of their room. Na when you wan begin display such nonsense in public that it becomes a problem with the law. Nigeria or Nigerians do not kill homosexuals, you might be harrased by overzealous homophobes but being killed??!! That's a stretch, I am yet to read any report of a homosexual being killed in any part of Nigeria. The west should stop this nonsense antics of giving a dog a bad name just to hang it.
His defence attorneys should stop using that miserable line of argument just so he can get off the hook. No such thing happens in Nigeria, Naija may not tolerate homosexual behaviour, we don't kill them either.
And these stupid journalists should stop misquoting the laws, last I checked, Naija still operates the old Sodomy laws set up by the british colonialists not the suggested 14years pending at the National Assembly that is yet to be passed or get any serious attention again since the last time.
If homeboy is not gay but is claiming to be one just to get gay asylum, good luck to his 4cking quest but he and his lawyers should stop peddling lies and outright exaggerations to make it seem like sending him to Naija is synonymous with handing him a death sentence.

[quote author=maxpro-xl]I see a lot of mediocrity and poverty mindset on this thread. Poster your list is very wrong. Please get facts next time before you mis-inform others especially the bulk of ignorant nairalanders.

Tayo aderinokun(gtb late ceo), jim ovia(zenith), tony elumelu(former uba ceo), cecilia ibru and many governors and ex-governors should be on that list.

You are all abusing a pastor just because he presides over a wealthy ministry. How many of you have asked what mike adenuga is doing with two private jets.

Winners chapel has only TWO JETS and not four. Even if it is four, how does that affect you bunch of haters. Am not a member of the church but l av details of their operations. The jets are used by all the seniors bishops and other leaders of the church. Bishop david abioye and bishop mike aremu inclusive. Its so sad that most of don't know the reason for a private jet. How can u know when most of u posting nonsense havnt travelled by air before not to talk of going abroad.

What is bad if u can afford some thing and you buy it. Some people av many cars they just park in their garage, some have many houses they don't even live in, some use handsets worth of over N150,000, some ladies have many designer handbags of over N30,000 each, some have jewelries worth over ,
N2million, some wear shoes worth over N100,000, some use wrist watches worth over N500,000 etc. And they have never assisted the poor before. They have never paid anyone's school fees, they av never assisted orphans, widows and destitutes.

What am l saying, all this luxury items av noted above does not matter to Bishop oyedepo if u come close to him. This same man leading winners chapel is the number one philantropist and largest creator of employment in ogun state. Now it is extending to other states: building primary and secondary schools, hospitals, universities, bakeries, hotels, restaurants, bookstores etc and thereby creating more employment.

Why do you think they have large members, its simply because they have a welfare package for less priviledges members every sunday. They help them with food, clothes, accommodation. Jobs and security for members who apply for assistance so please stop the hate.

Go to america and discover how churches contribute to economic growth. Assisting the poor and creating jobs. Pastor Keneth copeland in the US have giving out 26private jets as gift as at year 2009. Most pastors in america have been beneficiaries of this great giver. The more you give, the more God blesses you.

In a nutshell, you don't resemble God by being poor and God is not glorified by your poverty. Winners chapel is growing and will definately need more private jets in future. Mark my words today,a time will come when most of you will be so stunned by God's hand on this ministry that you will just walk into the church without being invited.

For your information, four more universities will be established soon. May God give you understanding and may you live long to connect with the covenant of prosperity that God has made available for all beleivers. You will succeed.[/quote]you are a fool that needs help! You mean a Pastor gave out jet aircraft as gift, wow! He must be the richest dumbo on earth, giving jets as gift, no wonder there is hunger and poverty. You can keep peddling your lies, the only people that will believe your trashy claims are goons like you.

[quote author=*dhtml]So you do believe that your thrash will infuriate the real christians on this thread? You are wasting your time.

Everyone is free to believe whatever they want to believe, i remain faithful to Yeshua T Adonai![/quote]hahahaha. . .i understand you unneccessary posture to want to be seen as civil and all that but please, don't make very foolish conclusions when you are yet to read the excerpts. Whether you believe in your great forebearers as the creator that is your own cup of tea, it does not take away from the fact that such belief is rooted from irrational belief system that requires adherent to not think or question the fairy tale they are told. You talk of Yeshua today because you were colonized by europeans and brainwashed into accepting such a hogwash. Am sure of the chinese had been our colonizers we prolly will be shouting and killing ourselves ober Buddha and co. .

SUMMARIES OF THE EXCERPTS
THE EPISTLES
1. Believers claim that Paul lived during the advent and after the death of Jesus Christ. 2. For this reason, they claim his epistles are one of the earliest christian texts. 3. His epistles strangely did not discuss or make any allusion to any of the events, places & people associated with the existence of a historical Jesus. 4. In writing His epistles about Jesus, Paul also never quotes from Jesus’s purported sermons and speeches, parables and prayers, nor does he mention Jesus’s supernatural birth or any of his alleged wonders and miracles, all of which would presumably be very important to Jesus’s followers, had such exploits and sayings been known prior to Paul. 5. All these point to the possibility that Paul could not quote, use or teach anything from the life and events Jesus in his epistles because there was nothing about Jesus that was true in the first place. 6. Instead Paul's epistles is laden with acient pre-christian religious beliefs, dogma, teachings and ideologies traceable to pre-existing pagan worship of the time. 7. The Jesus described in Paul's epistles are very different from the one described in the four canonical gospels. 8. In fact, it has been demonstratively proven that the so-called Paul's epistles are pseudographics ( forged writings). The the Pauline epistles could not have been written at the given orthodox dates of (c. 49-70) if in his first epistle to timorthy he made mention of Marcion of Pontus who lived (c. 100-160). Same goes for the othe epistles allegedly written by "Paul", all probable forgeries. THE GOSPELS 1. The Gospels were forged at the end of the 2nd century probably between 170-180 just about thesame time of the establishment of the Orthodoxy and supremecy of the Roman Church. 2. There are very strong evidence that all the canonical gospels were actually written in greek & not from the aclaimed jewish apostles who wrote in hebrew or Aramaic. 3. The greek word Petros was usedfor peter in the original gospels that were alleged to have come from Jewish apostles. 4. Prior to Luke's own narratives of the gospels, there were numerous narratives of the gospels in circulation which were once considered canonical but later adjudged suprious & vice versa. 5. The church Father Irenaeus bishop of lyon determined from these numerous narratives which ones should be canonized as God's inspired words. 6. The arrangement of the four canonical gospel is intentionally to give the false impression of order of publication, differing sources and production. 7. Mark or Luke is believed to be the first narratives of the canonical gospels, it is also believed that all of them copied from thesame source materials which was in greek language. 8. The first New Testament that ever appeared, was compiled and published by Marcion. It was in the Greek language. It consisted of “The Gospel,” and “The Apostolicon.” THE GOSPEL OF THE LORD Marcion's Gospel predates the canonical gospels and possibly was the material source from where the other writers copied. In his Gospel Jesus was not Jewish, he was not born but appeared in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberus Ceaser.

SUMMARIES OF THE EXCERPTS
THE EPISTLES
1. Believers claim that Paul lived during the advent and after the death of Jesus Christ. 2. For this reason, they claim his epistles are one of the earliest christian texts. 3. His epistles strangely did not discuss or make any allusion to any of the events, places & people associated with the existence of a historical Jesus. 4. In writing His epistles about Jesus, Paul also never quotes from Jesus’s purported sermons and speeches, parables and prayers, nor does he mention Jesus’s supernatural birth or any of his alleged wonders and miracles, all of which would presumably be very important to Jesus’s followers, had such exploits and sayings been known prior to Paul. 5. All these point to the possibility that Paul could not quote, use or teach anything from the life and events Jesus in his epistles because there was nothing about Jesus that was true in the first place. 6. Instead Paul's epistles is laden with acient pre-christian religious beliefs, dogma, teachings and ideologies traceable to pre-existing pagan worship of the time. 7. The Jesus described in Paul's epistles are very different from the one described in the four canonical gospels. 8. In fact, it has been demonstratively proven that the so-called Paul's epistles are pseudographics ( forged writings). The the Pauline epistles could not have been written at the given orthodox dates of (c. 49-70) if in his first epistle to timorthy he made mention of Marcion of Pontus who lived (c. 100-160). Same goes for the othe epistles allegedly written by "Paul", all probable forgeries. THE GOSPELS 1. The Gospels were forged at the end of the 2nd century probably between 170-180 just about thesame time of the establishment of the Orthodoxy and supremecy of the Roman Church. 2. There are very strong evidence that all the canonical gospels were actually written in greek & not from the aclaimed jewish apostles who wrote in hebrew or Aramaic. 3. The greek word Petros was usedfor peter in the original gospels that were alleged to have come from Jewish apostles. 4. Prior to Luke's own narratives of the gospels, there were numerous narratives of the gospels in circulation which were once considered canonical but later adjudged suprious & vice versa. 5. The church Father Irenaeus bishop of lyon determined from these numerous narratives which ones should be canonized as God's inspired words. 6. The arrangement of the four canonical gospel is intentionally to give the false impression of order of publication, differing sources and production. 7. Mark or Luke is believed to be the first narratives of the canonical gospels, it is also believed that all of them copied from thesame source materials which was in greek language. 8. The first New Testament that ever appeared, was compiled and published by Marcion. It was in the Greek language. It consisted of “The Gospel,” and “The Apostolicon.” THE GOSPEL OF THE LORD Marcion's Gospel predates the canonical gospels and possibly was the material source from where the other writers copied. In his Gospel Jesus was not Jewish, he was not born but appeared in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberus Ceaser.

The Summaries of The Posted Excerpts Part one. The existence of Jesus Christ is entirely based on an irrational belief system-faith- myths and deified Heroes that existed before the birth of Jesus. The gospel claims therefore do not evidently give the represention of a Jewish man that had physical reincarnation 2000 years ago. In the debate regarding the character and nature of Jesus christ, there are three contending school of thoughts: 1. THE BELIEVERS: this school of thought believes everything written in the christian-Judeo bible as sacrosanct, infallible, sacred and divine words of God written by men that were inspired by God even though this same bible is rife with inconsistencies, contradictions, errors and illogical yarns that render their beliefs untenable. Also, beievers have great disdain for critical thinking & the substance of physical evidence of history rather it thrives on illogical belief system and false portrayals of history and events. It is ironical that the christian believe that the only way God could fix the world (which by the way, thesame bible claims he created) was through blood-atonement of his own son, Jesus Christ yet history has shown and proved that such belief is rooted in acient pre-christian customs of sacrificing humans and animals, a barbaric, scapegaot ritual. And we are meant to believe that this is all God's plan according to the tenets of this beliefs. Believers ridicule as fiction, similar pre- christian religious & cultural dogmas to theirs but accept theirs as sacrosanct & devine. 2. THE EVEMERIST: this school of thought believes that the gods of old were in fact historical characters, kings, emperors & Heroes whose exploits and greatness were later deified. Of all these deified biographical entities, Jesus Christ is the most popular till date. Evemerist believe that it was Jesus's religio-political activities that became the centrepiece of his deification as well as got him the ire of the jewish people who begged Pontius Pilate the roman governor to execute Jesus christ. The claims of his execution according to the canonical gospels of the NT to support his existence face 3 difficulties: (a) All christian documents older than the NT gospels do not portray him as a political agitator as the NT gospels claims and does. (b) If his activities had been primarily political, and the evangelists were not interested in—or deemed it inexpedient to mention—his politics, then what was the motive for their strong interest in him? How did they come to suppose that a rebel, whose revolutionary views they tried to suppress in their gospels, was the universal saviour? (c) if he was involved in political activities to the point of engaging in temple cleansing as suggested in the NT why then did flavious Josephus who is one of the most respected Jewish historian not make mention of something as remarkable as that in his records. The evemerist argument becomes unatenable too because when one strips off all these elements of preceeding myths that has led to his deification; one finds there is nothing or any historical person to point to. 3. THE MYTHICIST: this school of thought believes that Jesus Christ like other older mythological character that have existed before him was a myth whose divinity was helped by the gradually increasing nature of human history thus the intertwined fables around his existence as claimed by the canonical gospels. This argument or belief is propelled by archaeological and linguistical discoveries and studies, as well as by the reduction of the Church’s power and vicious persecution of its critics. However, even with the revealing insight and perspective of their work, believers and evemerists alike have refused to acknowledge their interesting findings rather they have concentrated efforts on criticizing their work.

[quote author=Amechara_ovoko].
But is this what the thread is all about ? Enough of ur copying and pasting jooor[/quote]fact here is that the thread is about many things, I do not have to conform to what you wamt me to write or argue, what I post is very well related. Anyway, I did that to annoy and guage the temperament of the Christians here, apparently, apart from a few that are making weak attempts to tackle the arguments in those posts, the rest are angry, hate my guts and getting abusive. . Lol. it is so typical of religious goons, yet in another thread, we have christians beating their chest and bragging about their religion being more tolerant than that of their muslim counterpart. . .hahaha.

The Gospel of Matthew (180 CE) Although it was claimed by later Christian writers to be a “translation” of a manuscript written in Hebrew by the apostle Matthew, the Gospel of Matthew did not exist prior to the end of the second century and was originally written in Greek. As Waite says: The Greek Gospel of Matthew was a subsequent production, and either originally appeared in the Greek language, or was a translation of the Gospel of the Hebrews, with extensive changes and additions. There is reason to believe it to have been an original compilation, based upon the Oracles of Christ, but containing, in whole, or in part, a number of other manuscripts. The gospel of Matthew is particularly noteworthy in that it contains the interpolation at 16:17-19 not found in either Mark or Luke that gives authority to the Roman Church: To wit, the statement by Jesus that Peter is the rock upon which the church is to be built and the keeper of the keys to the kingdom of heaven. The appearance of this gospel determining Roman dominance corresponds to the violent schism of 180-190 between the branches of the Church over the celebration of Easter. It is clear that the canonical gospels are of a late date, forged long after the alleged time of their purported authors. Such they are, and, as Doane says, “In these four spurious Gospels . . . we have the only history of Jesus of Nazareth.”

The Gospel of Mark (175 CE) After the final destruction of Jerusalem and Judea by the Romans in 135, the Jerusalem church was taken over by non- Jews. Of this destruction and appropriation, Eusebius says: When in this way the city was closed to the Jewish race and suffered the total destruction of its former inhabitants, it was colonized by an alien race, and the Roman city which subsequently arose changed its name, so that now, in honour of the emperor then reigning, Aelius Hadrianus, it is known as Aelia. Furthermore, as the church in the city was now composed of Gentiles, the first after the bishops of the Circumcision to be put in charge of the Christians there was Mark. This devastation and changeover occurred in the 18th year of Hadrian’s rule, i.e., 135 CE; thus, we see that this Mark of whom Eusebius speaks could not have been the disciple Mark. The date is, however, perfect for the Gnostic Marcion. Eusebius provides confirmation of this association of Mark with Marcion when he immediately follows his comment about Mark with a discussion of “Leaders at that time of Knowledge falsely so called,” i.e., Gnostics and Gnosis. Indeed, legend held that Mark wrote his gospel in Rome and brought it to Alexandria, where he established churches, while Marcion purportedly published his gospel in Rome and no doubt went to Alexandria at some point. Like Waite, Mead also does not put Mark first: “It is very evident that Mt. and Lk. do not use our Mk., though they use most the material contained in our Mk. . .”In fact, all three manuscripts used Marcion as one of their sources. Like Marcion, Mark has no genealogy; unlike Marcion, he begins his story with John the Baptist, the hero of the Nazarenes/Mandaeans, added to incorporate that faction. The Gospel of Mark was admittedly tampered with, as is noted in the New Testament, with several verses (16:9-20) regarding the resurrected apparition and ascension added to the end. Here we have absolute proof of the gospels being changed to fit the circumstances, rather than recording “history.” Mark also provides an example of how interpolation was used to set the story in a particular place: For instance, Mk. 1:16 reads: “And passing along by the sea of Galilee he saw Simon and Andrew . . .” Almost all commentators agree that the words “by the sea of Galilee” were added by Mark. They are placed quite ungrammatically in the Greek syntax . . . Mark, then, has interpolated a reference to place into a report which lacked it . . . As to the authorship of Mark, ben Yehoshua says, “. . . the style of language used in Mark shows that it was written (probably in Rome) by a Roman convert to Christianity whose first language was Latin and not Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic.” It would seem, then, that the compiler of Mark used the Latin version of Marcion’s gospel, while Luke and Matthew used the Greek version, accounting for the variances between them. Indeed, the author of Mark was clearly not a Palestinian Jew, as Wells points out that Mark “betrays in 7:31 an ignorance of Palestinian geography.”

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN (178 CE) The Gospel of John is thought by most authorities to be the latest of the four, but Waite provides a compelling argument to place it third and reveals its purpose not only in refuting the Gnostics but also in establishing the primacy of the Roman Church: So strong is the evidence of a late date to this gospel, that its apostolic origin is being abandoned by the ablest evangelical writers. . . . Both Irenaeus and Jerome assert that John wrote against Cerinthus. Cerinthus thus flourished about A.D. 145. [T]here is evidence that in the construction of this gospel, as in that of Matthew, the author had in view the building up of the Roman hierarchy, the foundations of which were then (about A.D. 177-89) being laid. . . . There is a reason to believe that both [John and Matthew] were written in the interest of the supremacy of the Church of Rome. The tone of this gospel is anti-Jewish, revealing that it was written/compiled by a non-Jew, possibly a “Gentile” or an “exiled” Israelite of a different tribe, such as a Samaritan, who not only spoke of “the Jews” as separate and apart from him but also was not familiar with the geography of Palestine. As Waite also says: There are also many errors in reference to the geography of the country. The author speaks of Aenon, near to Salim, in Judea; also of Bethany, beyond Jordan, and of a “city of Samaria, called Sychar.” If there were any such places, they were strangely unknown to other writers. The learned Dr. Bretschneider points out such mistakes and errors of geography, chronology, history and statistics of Judea, as no person who had ever resided in that country, or had been by birth a Jew, could possibly have committed. In addition, as Keeler states: The Gospel of John says that Bethsaida was in Galilee. There is no such town in that district, and there never was. Bethsaida was on the east side of the sea of Tiberias, whereas Galilee was on the west side. St. John was born at Bethsaida, and the probability is that he would know the geographical location of his own birthplace. Furthermore, the writer of John relates several events at which the apostle John was not depicted as having appeared and does not record others at which he is said to have been present. Moreover, John is the only gospel containing the story of the raising of Lazarus from the dead, which is an Egyptian myth. That the Gospel of John served as a refutation of the Gnostics, or an attempt to usurp their authority and to bring them into the “fold,” is obvious from its Gnostic style. In fact, it has been suggested that the author of John used Cerinthus’s own gospel to refute the “heretic.” As Waite relates: The history as well as the writings of Cerinthus are strangely blended with those of John the presbyter, and even with John the apostle. . . . A sect called the Alogi attributed to him [Cerinthus] (so says Epiphanius), the gospel, as well as the other writings of John.

The Gospel of Luke (170 CE) The Gospel of Luke is acknowledged by early church fathers to be of a late date. As Waite states:. . Jerome admits that not only the Gospel of Basilides, composed about A.D. 125, and other gospels, admitted to have been first published in the second century, were written before that of Luke, but even the Gospel of Apelles also, which was written not earlier than A.D. 160. Like the rest of the gospels Luke fits into the timeframe of having been written between 170-180, as admitted by the Catholic Encyclopedia:. . . according to the Catholic Encyclopedia the book of Luke was not written till nearly two hundred years after this event [of Jesus’s departure]. The proof offered is that the Theophilus to whom Luke addressed it was bishop of Antioch from 169-177 A.D. The Gospel of Luke is a compilation of dozens of older manuscripts, 33 by one count, including the Gospel of the Lord. In using Marcion’s gospel, the Lukan writer (s) interpolated and removed textual matter in order both to historicize the story and to Judaize Marcion’s Jesus. In addition to lacking the childhood or genealogy found in the first two chapters of Luke, Marcion also was missing nearly all of the third chapter, save the bit about Capernaum, all of which were interpolated into Luke to give Jesus a historical background and Jewish heritage. Also, where Marcion’s gospel speaks of Jesus coming to Nazareth, Luke adds, “where he had been brought up,” a phrase missing from Marcion that is a further attempt on Luke’s part to make Jesus Jewish. Another example of the historicizing and Judaizing interpolation of the compiler(s) of Luke into Marcion can be found in the portrayal of Christ’s passion, which is represented in Marcion thus: Saying, the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be put to death, and after three days rise again. At Luke 9:22, the passage is rendered thus: Saying, “The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.” The inclusion of “elders and the chief priests and scribes” represents an attempt to make the story seem as if it happened one time in history, as opposed to the recurring theme in a savior-god cult and mystery school indicated by Marcion. Of this Lukan creation, Massey says: It can be proved how passage after passage has been added to the earlier gospel, in the course of manufacturing the later history. For example, the mourning over Jerusalem (Luke. 29-35) is taken verbatim from the 2nd Esdras (i. 28-33) without acknowledgement, and the words previously uttered by the “Almighty Lord” are here assigned to Jesus as the original speaker.