... so what happens though, when there is no more land in Lagos? Like literally speaking... all the virgin lands eaten up by businesses/investors, families and so on and so forth...

and I don't know what the obsession is on the name or tag given to Lagos... Even if it is not dubbed NL - "No-man's land"... and is considered to be part of the SW ONLY IN GEOGRAPHICAL contexts... it sstill does not, DOES NOT make it the land of/ownership of any single ethnic group in this contraction called Nigeria, one Nigeria I must add.

Hope you all have/had a wonderful celebration of independence day... once again... tis One Nigeria!!!

pazienza: Btw, nobody wants SW, we only want lagos,as we are well aware that lagos is 'no man's land' and not part of SW.

PhysicsQED: @ DerideGull,


@ Katsumoto,

What do you think of the part in pp. 47-50 of the book (in the section called 'The spectre of tribalism'), where Luckham casts serious doubt (with what I think is a rather convincing argument) on the idea of it being an "Igbo coup"? I remember we discussed this issue before a long time ago, but I think Luckham makes a better argument than I did against the idea (although he doesn't talk much about the political climate in that particular section of the book). Is there some particular reason that you think Luckham's doubts (against the "Igbo coup" idea) are misguided or unconvincing?

Luckham addressed mainly the composition of the plotters. He explains how the ‘the right conditions for forming peer groups could have been developed by some of the plotters attending Sandhurst. And that being from the same tribe would have made it easier for them to plan a coup. Luckham then explains how the Ewes in Ghana planned the February 66 coup in Ghana and were able to embark on a successful political programme. He reasons that since the coup wasn’t successful, we wouldn’t know how successful their reforms would have been.

He mentions that the Igbo soldiers were mostly to be the group affected by any interference from Northern ministers. He admits that the officers would be concerned about the security of their own careers. He talks about how Ironsi being in tears when meeting with ministers made it seem like he wasn’t aware of the plan but Luckham then states that Ironsi was most likely briefed about the coup by Njoku which is consistent with his actions on the night of the coup.

I have to disagree with Luckham because:

1. After Balewa had been killed, NPC, the majority party caucused and selected Dipcharima as its nominee to replace Balewa. NCNC, which was the junior partner, also caucused and selected Mbadiwe. Why was the NCNC, which was predominantly an Eastern party caucusing to select the PM, after Eastern sons had murdered in cold blood,the PM who was from the North? Was it the NCNC that selected Balewa in the first place?

2. After Dipcharima had been selected by the NPC, Orizu said he needed to speak with Zik first before swearing in Dipcharima. After speaking with Zik, he preferred to handover to Ironsi. All three actions to deny the Northerners power on that day were taken by Igbo sons –
a) The plotters
b) Orizu/Zik
c) Ironsi who seized power for himself

3. The Ewes and the Igbos are not the same; there weren’t too many similarities between Ghana and Nigeria in that era. How does Luckham know what Ifeajuna would have done if he had succeeded. In any case, the Ewes were accused of domination afterwards.

4. Luckham does not fully address the composition of the murdered politicians and Soldiers. He states that afterall, they killed Unegbe who is from their ethnic group. He claims that friendliness may have been responsible for the inability of the plotters to kill Igbo officers such as Njoku, Anwuna, and Imo.

5. Luckham also ignores the constitutional crisis of January 1965 and the elction fiasco of 1964; the deteriorating relationship between NCNC and NPC since the Census in 1962 and Zik’s annoyance at returning Akintola as premier of the West

6. Luckham ignores the absence of Zik from the country and does not explore the relationship between Zik and Ifeajuna. Ajuluchukwu, who was Zik’s right hand man, stated publicly that Ifeajuna was Zik’s cousin. He also assigns little importance to the visit by Ifeajuna to Okpara, although he admits that some commentators took that as complicity on Okpara’s part.

7. Nzeogwu and Nwobosi were both of the view that the execution of the coup in the South was tribalistic and incompetent; Luckham sees Nzeogwu’s assessment as harsh

8. Luckham provides that Ironsi’s explanation for escaping with his life was contradictory; Ironsi had more than one story

9. Luckham puts the failure of the plotters to kill Ironsi before his junior officers as bad planning. Was that really bad planning?

10. Luckham couldn’t see that there were two different objectives for the coup and lumped them together – Nzeogwu’s noble and patriotic act & Ifeajuna’s ethnically motivated murders and power grabbing

11. Igbo actions after the coup
a) Decree 34 – unifying the civil service under Nwokedi
b) Advisory group – all Igbo
c) Lifting the moratorium on promotions with 76% of promotions going to Igbo
d) Exporting civil servants from Enugu to Kaduna and Lagos

Well, Luckham is at liberty to reach his own conclusions just as I am at liberty to reach my own conclusions. My opinion and analyses is merely academic at this point. In 1966, those who felt it was an Igbo coup took action.

Hey, if you don't mind, can you tell me where to get the book? Purchase it, I mean... and which other book or books about the civil war do you recommend or think gives a balanced view or perspective, but detailed accounts of the events leading up to and up until just after the war... early 70s to 80 or mid 80s... thanks in advance.

PhysicsQED: @ DerideGull,

Whenever you return to the thread, I have another question, and I hope you can explain this to me because something seems a bit puzzling about your current list right now. You mentioned Captain A.G. Ozumba in your list that you posted earlier in this thread. But wasn't A.G. Ozumba a captain in the Nigerian Navy, not the Army? I have the same question about Captain E Ukiwe that you mentioned as well. If I am mistaken on this count, please give a correction and an explanation of when they became officers in the Navy or if they never did. It seems some of those on your list were in the armed forces, but not in the Army.

I went back to look at Luckham's book (because I thought I might be able to discover how you and Luckham were arriving at different figures on a rather simple and straightforward question), only to find that those particular statistics in Luckham's book (511 officers, 330 of these being combat status officers) are for the Army, not the entire military and he explicitly says that he's referring only to the Army, not the entire Armed Forces, in those instances where he's talking about those 330 officers.

I suspect that you and Katsumoto can come closer to reaching a consensus on this issue if it is made more explicit whether you guys are talking about one particular branch of the armed forces (the Army) or about the entire military. Honestly, it's not clear which of these two groups (the Army, or the entire military) this officers disagreement between you and Katsumoto was truly about and I think that in the course of your debates, it may have become unclear which group (the Army alone, or the entire military) was being considered. For example, in your post earlier in this thread where you listed those Igbo officers, before the names in the list, you wrote above that:

"Igbo Officers in Nigerian Army as of January 15, 1966 by Dede1"

So one would think that you really meant the Nigerian Army. However, in your most recent comment towards me, where you quoted me, you said:

"Dede1 has painstakingly listed the names and ranks of Igbo officers in Nigerian armed forces from Major General to Captain as of January 15, 1966"

So, in this instance, one would think you really meant the entire Nigerian armed forces.

There seems to be a disconnect between those two statements.

I guess the issue really is, what are you and Katsumoto disagreeing about - the ethnic composition of the officers in the Nigerian Army as of January 1966, or the ethnic composition of the officers in the entire Nigerian Armed Forces as of January 1966?


@ Katsumoto,

What do you think of the part in pp. 47-50 of the book (in the section called 'The spectre of tribalism'), where Luckham casts serious doubt (with what I think is a rather convincing argument) on the idea of it being an "Igbo coup"? I remember we discussed this issue before a long time ago, but I think Luckham makes a better argument than I did against the idea (although he doesn't talk much about the political climate in that particular section of the book). Is there some particular reason that you think Luckham's doubts (against the "Igbo coup" idea) are misguided or unconvincing?

PhysicsQED:

I think you're not being objective here. Yes, you "painstakingly" compiled the list, but your research so far has not been "painstaking" enough.

In the first place, you said repeatedly that the list you posted does not even include all the Igbo officers as of Jan. 1966 - so it's clearly not meant to be a list of all the Igbo officers, whether combat status or non-combatant. ('Dede1 still have hundreds of Igbo officers from the ranks of Lieutenant to Second Lieutenant that were not listed.' - your earlier post)

At the same time, the list you originally posted still included some non-combatant officers - so it wasn't even meant to be a list of just the combat status officers either.

When you take the time to

a) actually form a list that includes all the Igbo officers as of Jan. 1966, whether combat status or non-combatant

and

a) compare such a list to a list of all the Nigerian officers as of Jan. 1966, regardless of ethnicity


or


b) actually form a list that includes all the combat-status Igbo officers only

and

b) compare such a list to a list of all the combat-status Nigerian officers as of Jan. 1966, regardless of ethnicity


Then you can determine what the percentage was (of combat status officers, or of all officers) that was Igbo and determine whether or not the existing published statistics that have been referenced previously are flawed. Until you make an actual comparison, it doesn't seem that there's much significance to your list just by itself. It seems to me that the burden of proof is on you (to disprove the existing statistics), but you don't seem willing to carry out (b) above, and for some strange reason, think your list alone is enough.

By the way, even if I had had some serious interest in this (rather minor) detail to begin with, I can't see myself scanning and uploading all the Official Gazettes of the government from the 1950s to 1966, if I'm not going to publish something on that. However, I think I've actually done you a favor - if you actually wish to attempt to debunk Luckham's research, or put your claims on firmer ground, I've directed you (and another poster) in this thread to exactly the resource to use to do that.

Finally, I'm not sure what relevance the list of Yoruba or Edo officers is supposed to have here - there were a lot of other ethnic groups in Nigeria in 1966, in case you forgot.

You have started once on this forum that you have never stepped onto a parade ground in your life. May ask you how you identify a combat and non-combat officer? Even there are combat engineers and medical corps in every armed force.

In this discussion, your insincerity and lack of objectivity know no boundaries. You can not even fool a kindergarten pupil on you assumed impartiality.

One of the problems of Africans is their inability to think outside the box. The relevance about the list of Yoruba and Edo officers is to form a benchmark in order to gauge the correctness of the figures provided by the British named Robin Luckham. We must try to embrace the truth and sincerity in Nigeria instead of hiding behind tribal bias and intellectual laziness.

PhysicsQED: @ DerideGull,

Whenever you return to the thread, I have another question, and I hope you can explain this to me because something seems a bit puzzling about your current list right now. You mentioned Captain A.G. Ozumba in your list that you posted earlier in this thread. But wasn't A.G. Ozumba a captain in the Nigerian Navy, not the Army? I have the same question about Captain E Ukiwe that you mentioned as well. If I am mistaken on this count, please give a correction and an explanation of when they became officers in the Navy or if they never did. It seems some of those on your list were in the armed forces, but not in the Army.

I went back to look at Luckham's book (because I thought I might be able to discover how you and Luckham were arriving at different figures on a rather simple and straightforward question), only to find that those particular statistics in Luckham's book (511 officers, 330 of these being combat status officers) are for the Army, not the entire military and he explicitly says that he's referring only to the Army, not the entire Armed Forces, in those instances where he's talking about those 330 officers.

I suspect that you and Katsumoto can come closer to reaching a consensus on this issue if it is made more explicit whether you guys are talking about one particular branch of the armed forces (the Army) or about the entire military. Honestly, it's not clear which of these two groups (the Army, or the entire military) this officers disagreement between you and Katsumoto was truly about and I think that in the course of your debates, it may have become unclear which group (the Army alone, or the entire military) was being considered. For example, in your post earlier in this thread where you listed those Igbo officers, before the names in the list, you wrote above that:

"Igbo Officers in Nigerian Army as of January 15, 1966 by Dede1"

So one would think that you really meant the Nigerian Army. However, in your most recent comment towards me, where you quoted me, you said:

"Dede1 has painstakingly listed the names and ranks of Igbo officers in Nigerian armed forces from Major General to Captain as of January 15, 1966"

So, in this instance, one would think you really meant the entire Nigerian armed forces.

There seems to be a disconnect between those two statements.

I guess the issue really is, what are you and Katsumoto disagreeing about - the ethnic composition of the officers in the Nigerian Army as of January 1966, or the ethnic composition of the officers in the entire Nigerian Armed Forces as of January 1966?


@ Katsumoto,

What do you think of the part in pp. 47-50 of the book (in the section called 'The spectre of tribalism'), where Luckham casts serious doubt (with what I think is a rather convincing argument) on the idea of it being an "Igbo coup"? I remember we discussed this issue before a long time ago, but I think Luckham makes a better argument than I did against the idea (although he doesn't talk much about the political climate in that particular section of the book). Is there some particular reason that you think Luckham's doubts (against the "Igbo coup" idea) are misguided or unconvincing?

I have said you can not even fool a kindergarten pupil about your partiality in this discussion so I suggest you stop pretending to be neutral observer. During the era in discussion, the armed forces of the Nigeria have not been properly departmentalized as many army boys were seconded to air force hence officers such as Andrew Nwankwo was still referred in the official gazette as Captain instead of Flt Lieutenant.

However, Dede1 made sure that such ambiguity was curtailed by listing the navy and air force ranks in brackets. Although a tribal and partisan participant such as you who is blinded by tribal bias could not make out differences in the list provided by Dede1.

@ Katsumoto, interesting response, although I'm still not really convinced about the merit of that idea. I would explain why I disagree with that overall interpretation here, but the discussion would probably get too lengthy. Thanks for explaining your view on Luckham's analysis though.

DerideGull:
You have started once on this forum that you have never stepped onto a parade ground in your life. May ask you how you identify a combat and non-combat officer? Even there are combat engineers and medical corps in every armed force.

In this discussion, your insincerity and lack of objectivity know no boundaries. You can not even fool a kindergarten pupil on you assumed impartiality.

The one of the problems of Africans is their inability to think outside the box. There relevance about the list of Yoruba and Edo officers is to form a benchmark in order to gauge the correctness of the figures provided by the British named Robin Luckham. We must try to embrace the truth and sincerity in Nigeria instead of hiding behind tribal bias and intellectual laziness.

So that there's no confusion, let me repeat it and see if this time you'll get it: the list of Yoruba officers alone, or the list of Edo officers alone by Jan. 1966 has no relevance to the particular problem at the root of the disagreement you were/are having with Katsumoto.

There are two lists that would be relevant if one is trying to determine the percentage of a certain ethnic group (Igbo) among the officers: (1) the list of all the officers regardless of ethnicity, and (2) the list of all the officers belonging to one specific ethnicity (Igbo, in this case) whose percentage of the officers one is trying to determine.

If one has the list of all Yoruba officers, and the list of all Edo officers, and the list of all Igbo officers, that still would not mean that one can determine the percentage of Igbo officers out of the all the officers, nor would it mean that one can assume that they can "gauge" what the total number is or the percentage of the Igbo officers in the total. There were a whole lot of other ethnic groups in Nigeria in 1966 (and there still are), in case you forgot.

Also, I thought it would be obvious that the list of Yoruba officers specifically, or Edo officers specifically, would be contained within the list of all officers regardless of ethnicity anyway, but I guess I should have stated the obvious.

On this part: "May ask you how you identify a combat and non-combat officer? Even there are combat engineers and medical corps in every armed force."

I don't know what your criteria are for what constitutes a combat officer, but it's clear from Luckham's book that he doesn't consider units from the medical corps or engineers to be combat units (but instead considers them support units), nor does he refer to officers of those units as combat officers. That isn't the way he uses the term (he doesn't use it in an inclusive manner), and I think quibbling over that would just be getting into semantics since we both know what he really means anyway.

remark D: Hey, if you don't mind, can you tell me where to get the book? Purchase it, I mean... and which other book or books about the civil war do you recommend or think gives a balanced view or perspective, but detailed accounts of the events leading up to and up until just after the war... early 70s to 80 or mid 80s... thanks in advance.

I don't make it a point to read lots of books on the civil war or the 1960s coups honestly. Not really an area of huge focus for me, so you're probably better off asking somebody else.

I did read Max Siollun's 2009 book a while back and it seemed balanced to me (but others may disagree), although that book isn't specifically about the civil war.

For Luckham's book, I would just search for it on worldcat.org and get it at the library nearest to you - that's what I did; I didn't buy Luckham's book. But if you really want to buy it, it would probably have to be ordered online - abebooks.com, or amazon should have copies available.

DerideGull:
I have said you can not even fool a kindergarten pupil about your partiality in this discussion so I suggest you stop pretending to be neutral observer. During the era in discussion, the armed forces of the Nigeria have not been properly departmentalized as many army boys were seconded to air force hence officers such as Andrew Nwankwo was still referred official gazette as Captain instead of Flt Lieutenant.

However, Dede1 made sure that such ambiguity was curtailed by listing the navy and air force ranks in brackets. Although a tribal and partisan participant such as you who is blinded by tribal bias could not make out differences in the list provided by Dede1.

Thanks for the explanation (lieutenant in the navy, not captain, etc.), but it seems like you missed the overall point, which is that you were unclear about whether you were putting forward a list of Army officers (which would make sense to compare to Luckham's statistic), or a list of officers from the entire armed forces (which would not make sense to compare to Luckham's statistic). I assumed it was meant to be a list of army officers (because of your title for the list, where you said the names were all of army officers), but you included people who were not army officers in 1966 - I noticed this when I saw Ozumba and Ukiwe's names, but I should have noticed it earlier from the Flight Lieutenants and Squadron Leaders indicated, and I should have realized these people had these ranks by 1966. I think it should be obvious how this total ambiguity on just what it is you are disagreeing about is a problem as far as your comparison of your list with Luckham's stats and as far as your overall disagreement with Katsumoto.

The armed forces had been departmentalized by 1966 so I'm not sure what your point there about Nwankwo etc. is supposed to be. Was the statistic about officers in the Army in Jan. 1966 or was it about "officers in the army during a certain era"? It was about officers in the army in Jan. 1966. Perhaps if this wasn't clear before, it's clear now - there is not any ambiguity in the book about what the statistic is actually about.

Katsumoto:

How does calling Insincere Nigerian a money grabbing propaganda artist translate to calling all Igbos lovers of money? Everyone on these boards know that Sincere Nigerian is a political jobber. Or can you point to where I called Igbo people lovers of money? Please read my comment again. I expect you to do the honourable thing and apologize.

This strategy of calling a dog a bad name in other to hang it will not work on me. I am disappointed that you have joined that bandwagon; I thought you to be a reasonable person.

I will address the rest of your post in a couple of hours.

Many a times, our popular beer parlour jokes have been used, abused, and even streched to become raison d'etre of our division in Nigeria. In Igbo land, people from Onitsha/Awka refer to others from Enugu as wawas, or people who're not so smart, while they get called called 'agbenu' or desparate people, Owerri people have derogatory names they call Orlu people and vis versa.

Igbos jokingly call Yorubas ndi-ofenmanu(people who eat too much oil in their soup), while Yorubas call Igbos ---something like one who eats stones without drinking water!

All these are fun and game, until someone begins to use same vocabularies to justify genocide.

Igbos liking money 'too much' has been used even by Gowon himself who said that " an Igbo soldier is not really dead untill he is unable to open his eyes to the shaking of coins in his ears"

You certainly know this exagerated hyperbol has been directed at Igbos as a common joke and one of the reasons to support trying to eliminate them from the face of the earth. Given your knowledge of the issue, it certainly wasn't a mere coincidence that you were referring to Igbos as people willing to sell their soul for money. You should have known better.

Wow...look as dem take Uncle Dendemoron go school. lmao

Katsumoto:

I have never dodged a question. Direct me to the question asked and how I dodged it.

First, the massacre of innocent people should be condemned by all decent human beings. Did I state that the murders of defenseless people was justifiable? You simply want to draw this debate to where 'you can play the victim'. I am debating the events of the first coup which led to the second coup and since the facts support my position, you want to demonize me even when I made no mention of the pogroms, justifiable or not.

Second, the victims of the first coup were overwhelmingly Northerners. Why not direct your question at them? I am not a Northerner and can't speak for them. A discussion about how far one can go with regards to a wicked act (January coup and murders of non-igbos) and the concomitant retributive reaction (July Coup and murders of Igbos) should be held between Ndigbo and the Northerners. All I can say is that one action led to a reaction.

Third, I find blatantly reprehensible, the strategy of 'playing victims' after some of you lose debates. What was the point of mentioning the pogroms if not to play victim? I have analysed and pointed out the actions of some Igbo sons in the 60s which led to chaos in Nigeria only in response to lies, factual inaccuracies, and illogical conclusions. I did not open this thread just I haven't opened any other in the past with regards to this subject. I am simply doing my bit, based on MY knowledge, to ensure that history isn't re-written.

Fourth, I have often had respectable debates with you in the past, I do not appreciate words being put in my mouth. Respond, if you must, to what I state or imply explicitly.

First, Igbos are not playing the victim, remember no victor, no vanquished? Igbos, Yorubas, Hausa, etc should never be targeted for elimination based on the action of a few of their tribesmen.
You did your best to say that you did not cut the throat of the sacrificial lamb.
Practically, you probably didn't, but with your argument(which you're entitled to), your conjectures, and insinuations, you certainly purchased the poor animal, feed it, washed, and gently led it to the alter. Now, with your intellectual background, you have sat near the altar urging and directing a less informed chief priest on how best to cut the carotid vessels carrying blood to the animal's brain.
And you say that it wasn't you that slew the lamb

There is nothing wrong with reviewing historical events, especially with a view of preventing a repeat, but when you review the stated events and fill in the gaps of what happened more than 50 years ago with your current conjectures, speculations, and political bias, then it tends towards criminalty. Remember that the people prosecuted at the Hague for genocide in Rwanda were not actually the people doing the killing, but the so-called intellectuals who used communication media like radio and TV(not NL) to persuade people to go ut and kill their neighbours in the name of tribe. People like you have to be extra careful not to say things that are not 100% factual.

Cock-eyed intellectuals points provided to the uninformed mob unable to differentiate your facts, from your conjectures/ fictions, only serve to perpuate a century old division based on falsehood.
We all know for a fact that what goes around comes around. Yesterday, it was Igbos, tomorrow it maybe tribe-x. My hope is that never again would a tribe be targeted for elimination based on the action of 4-5 army officers, those who cheered coup pltters, those that wore T-shirts celebrating the coup, those who were noticed laughing out aloud about the death of a fellow Nigerian, or those potentially preparing to go north to take Hausa jobs after Ironsi eliminated Hausa language from the civil service requirements. All these sillly allegations and even more did not justify trying to eliminate Igbos.

BTW, if you doubt that you have not been providing fodder or a sharp knife to the less informed, just look back to how much your comment has been used by people who see nothing wrong in the Igbo massacre.
As an itellectual, how stable will our part of the World be if the larger group would easily massacre the smaller group based on unscientific reasons?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Dude stop the emotional BS. Point out the lies or inaccuracies in my comments already or let it go.

Thanks again for your recommendation of sources.

It would be great if every aspect of this war were documented extensively with explorations of all possible perspective... but it seems (some parents want) that war to be forgotten... for whatever reason.... and Heaven knows why this Useni man thought it pertinent to bring this story up now... I mean... if they not gonna make it part of our educational curriculum, then don't the eff talk about it in little pieces her eand there that ends up leaing gullible minds into a foray of confusion and delusions. .

PhysicsQED: @ Katsumoto, interesting response, although I'm still not really convinced about the merit of that idea. I would explain why I disagree with that overall interpretation here, but the discussion would probably get too lengthy. Thanks for explaining your view on Luckham's analysis though.

remark D: Thanks again for your recommendation of sources.

It would be great if every aspect of this war were documented extensively with explorations of all possible perspective... but it seems (some parents want) that war to be forgotten... for whatever reason.... an[b]d Heaven knows why this Useni man thought it pertinent to bring this story up now... I mean... if they not gonna make it part of our educational curriculum, then don't the eff talk about it in little pieces her eand there that ends up leaing gullible minds into a foray of confusion and delusions. .[/b]

tell that to chinua achebe

naijaking1:

First, Igbos are not playing the victim, remember no victor, no vanquished? Igbos, Yorubas, Hausa, etc should never be targeted for elimination based on the action of a few of their tribesmen.
You did your best to say that you did not cut the throat of the sacrificial lamb.
Practically, you probably didn't, but with your argument(which you're entitled to), your conjectures, and insinuations, you certainly purchased the poor animal, feed it, washed, and gently led it to the alter. Now, with your intellectual background, you have sat near the altar urging and directing a less informed chief priest on how best to cut the carotid vessels carrying blood to the animal's brain.
And you say that it wasn't you that slew the lamb

There is nothing wrong with reviewing historical events, especially with a view of preventing a repeat, but when you review the stated events and fill in the gaps of what happened more than 50 years ago with your current conjectures, speculations, and political bias, then it tends towards criminalty. Remember that the people prosecuted at the Hague for genocide in Rwanda were not actually the people doing the killing, but the so-called intellectuals who used communication media like radio and TV(not NL) to persuade people to go ut and kill their neighbours in the name of tribe. People like you have to be extra careful not to say things that are not 100% factual.

Cock-eyed intellectuals points provided to the uninformed mob unable to differentiate your facts, from your conjectures/ fictions, only serve to perpuate a century old division based on falsehood.
We all know for a fact that what goes around comes around. Yesterday, it was Igbos, tomorrow it maybe tribe-x. My hope is that never again would a tribe be targeted for elimination based on the action of 4-5 army officers, those who cheered coup pltters, those that wore T-shirts celebrating the coup, those who were noticed laughing out aloud about the death of a fellow Nigerian, or those potentially preparing to go north to take Hausa jobs after Ironsi eliminated Hausa language from the civil service requirements. All these sillly allegations and even more did not justify trying to eliminate Igbos.

BTW, if you doubt that you have not been providing fodder or a sharp knife to the less informed, just look back to how much your comment has been used by people who see nothing wrong in the Igbo massacre.
As an itellectual, how stable will our part of the World be if the larger group would easily massacre the smaller group based on unscientific reasons?

Thank you very much. I have said it many times that Katsumoto is the worst bigot we have here. He drops his extremist views in codes. Leaving his less informed followers to interprete his comments. I thought that I'm the only one that made this observation. This is why I regard you as one of the most intelligent posters here.

ACM10:

Thank you very much. I have said it many times that Katsumoto is the worst bigot we have here. He drops his extremist views in codes. Leaving his less informed followers to interprete his comments. I thought that I'm the only one that made this observation. This is why I regard you as one of the most intelligent posters here.

Katz have never claim to be convincing or trying to convince anyone here....you are the one always reducing it to such....it's your opinion and you are legit to believe whatever you wish to believe...and people here don't have to agree with you.

Katz can never convince people like you and your type.

If in an attempt in trying to debunk some allegations and share some of his knowledge ...you find repulsive, you can decide to always jump his comment and never respond. You in particular have never come close to winning a debate with Katz or anyone whatsoever in this community....you are more or less a tribal champion at best.

Katsumoto: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Dude stop the emotional BS. Point out the lies or inaccuracies in my comments already or let it go.

What makes his comment emotional? Many times you have made conjectures that are factual innacuracies. Some of your comments are dangerous. It gets worse when you have league of followers who are ever ready to swallow your story hook, line and sinker. Whenever someone tells you the truth, you accuse him of making emotional comment. Truth hurts.

ACM10, when are you travelling to the village to get those books with your grandmother in the library? Remember to also look for the page(s) of the quote Ola Johnson posted which you said was not in Ben Gbulie's book.

naijaking1:

First, Igbos are not playing the victim, remember no victor, no vanquished? Igbos, Yorubas, Hausa, etc should never be targeted for elimination based on the action of a few of their tribesmen.
You did your best to say that you did not cut the throat of the sacrificial lamb.
Practically, you probably didn't, but with your argument(which you're entitled to), your conjectures, and insinuations, you certainly purchased the poor animal, feed it, washed, and gently led it to the alter. Now, with your intellectual background, you have sat near the altar urging and directing a less informed chief priest on how best to cut the carotid vessels carrying blood to the animal's brain.
And you say that it wasn't you that slew the lamb

There is nothing wrong with reviewing historical events, especially with a view of preventing a repeat, but when you review the stated events and fill in the gaps of what happened more than 50 years ago with your current conjectures, speculations, and political bias, then it tends towards criminalty. Remember that the people prosecuted at the Hague for genocide in Rwanda were not actually the people doing the killing, but the so-called intellectuals who used communication media like radio and TV(not NL) to persuade people to go ut and kill their neighbours in the name of tribe. People like you have to be extra careful not to say things that are not 100% factual.

Cock-eyed intellectuals points provided to the uninformed mob unable to differentiate your facts, from your conjectures/ fictions, only serve to perpuate a century old division based on falsehood.
We all know for a fact that what goes around comes around. Yesterday, it was Igbos, tomorrow it maybe tribe-x. My hope is that never again would a tribe be targeted for elimination based on the action of 4-5 army officers, those who cheered coup pltters, those that wore T-shirts celebrating the coup, those who were noticed laughing out aloud about the death of a fellow Nigerian, or those potentially preparing to go north to take Hausa jobs after Ironsi eliminated Hausa language from the civil service requirements. All these sillly allegations and even more did not justify trying to eliminate Igbos.

BTW, if you doubt that you have not been providing fodder or a sharp knife to the less informed, just look back to how much your comment has been used by people who see nothing wrong in the Igbo massacre.
As an itellectual, how stable will our part of the World be if the larger group would easily massacre the smaller group based on unscientific reasons?

A man is entitled to his opinion over any matter. Katz his entitled to his, to believe what he chose to believe,from his own perspective and sense of judgement, just the same way you are.

Was that not Ibos argument for Achebe's stupid book? What is good for the goose, is definitely good for the gander . If you can justify Achebe's embarrassing write up at his age, the same goes for any view on the events that was the genesis of this country's problem.

Do not always think others cannot reason, and we must always tow your line of argument. The same right you have to have an opinion is the same I have. So, do not stress yourself to convince me. The same way you chose to believe all those tales you were told by your uncle, just like Chimanda chose to believe her uncle, I chose to believe my uncle's side of the story too.

The learning point of all these intellectual debates, is not for us to argue, but for us to throw questions at what we believe; to elicit reasoning; to either approve or doubt whatever we have been told either orally or written.

Also, it is for us not to repeat the same mistake that were made by past leaders. Here we are today, when some people that did not bring a nylon bag filled sand from the East will be telling us lagos is no man's land and you think the crescendo o hatred is not building up against them. Is kaduna, port harcourt, owerri and enugu no man's land. deranged argument of mad men. The truth, no matter their number in lagos, you can never claim lagos indigeneship because we will ask you who is your father and a Yoruba man will forever hold the powers of lagos. That shows who owns lagos. Shikena. So because there are close to 3mm Pakistanis and Indians and 2mm Yorubas in UK, that makes Uk a no man's country. Funny u, dream on. This is even Africa. If you are looking for no man's land you will measure 200nautical miles off the continental shelf of Nigeria. That is no man's land and that is even international water.

Dint the ibo people in lagos and other parts of SW carry their bags and ran to the east during June 12 debacle and wishing it was pay back time for the Yorubas. No man's land indeed. But alas, we grounded the country without a single shot, we sent one military president packing without a blood thirst coup, we sent the other to the world beyond. That singular war today, is a reference point all over the world and that forms the foundation of the 4th republic.

The next subtle war to be waged is SNC. It is high time ibo people get their acts together at the conference before they will be ahort changed again.

On the issue of SNC, I will remain an hardened supporter of confederacy and regionalization that was cancelled by the power greed of some people, which has led us to where we are today. We need to weaken the centre to the barest minimum. Let us go back to the basics. Let each region develop at their own pace. If east wants to turn to Dubai and Japan and Israel in 5years, so be it , if SW wants to turn to US or UK or France, so be it and if the north's dream is to become Afghanstan Somalia Pakistan Iran and Iraq, may God help them.

remark D: ... so what happens though, when there is no more land in Lagos? Like literally speaking... all the virgin lands eaten up by businesses/investors, families and so on and so forth...

and I don't know what the obsession is on the name or tag given to Lagos... Even if it is not dubbed NL - "No-man's land"... and is considered to be part of the SW ONLY IN GEOGRAPHICAL contexts... it sstill does not, DOES NOT make it the land of/ownership of any single ethnic group in this contraction called Nigeria, one Nigeria I must add.

Hope you all have/had a wonderful celebration of independence day... once again... tis One Nigeria!!!

I tell u bro,one nigeria, one lagos. *happy*

Katsumoto:

Luckham addressed mainly the composition of the plotters. He explains how the ‘the right conditions for forming peer groups could have been developed by some of the plotters attending Sandhurst. And that being from the same tribe would have made it easier for them to plan a coup. Luckham then explains how the Ewes in Ghana planned the February 66 coup in Ghana and were able to embark on a successful political programme. He reasons that since the coup wasn’t successful, we wouldn’t know how successful their reforms would have been.

He mentions that the Igbo soldiers were mostly to be the group affected by any interference from Northern ministers. He admits that the officers would be concerned about the security of their own careers. He talks about how Ironsi being in tears when meeting with ministers made it seem like he wasn’t aware of the plan but Luckham then states that Ironsi was most likely briefed about the coup by Njoku which is consistent with his actions on the night of the coup.

I have to disagree with Luckham because:

1. After Balewa had been killed, NPC, the majority party caucused and selected Dipcharima as its nominee to replace Balewa. NCNC, which was the junior partner, also caucused and selected Mbadiwe. Why was the NCNC, which was predominantly an Eastern party caucusing to select the PM, after Eastern sons had murdered in cold blood,the PM who was from the North? Was it the NCNC that selected Balewa in the first place?

2. After Dipcharima had been selected by the NPC, Orizu said he needed to speak with Zik first before swearing in Dipcharima. After speaking with Zik, he preferred to handover to Ironsi. All three actions to deny the Northerners power on that day were taken by Igbo sons –
a) The plotters
b) Orizu/Zik
c) Ironsi who seized power for himself

3. The Ewes and the Igbos are not the same; there weren’t too many similarities between Ghana and Nigeria in that era. How does Luckham know what Ifeajuna would have done if he had succeeded. In any case, the Ewes were accused of domination afterwards.

4. Luckham does not fully address the composition of the murdered politicians and Soldiers. He states that afterall, they killed Unegbe who is from their ethnic group. He claims that friendliness may have been responsible for the inability of the plotters to kill Igbo officers such as Njoku, Anwuna, and Imo.

5. Luckham also ignores the constitutional crisis of January 1965 and the elction fiasco of 1964; the deteriorating relationship between NCNC and NPC since the Census in 1962 and Zik’s annoyance at returning Akintola as premier of the West

6. Luckham ignores the absence of Zik from the country and does not explore the relationship between Zik and Ifeajuna. Ajuluchukwu, who was Zik’s right hand man, stated publicly that Ifeajuna was Zik’s cousin. He also assigns little importance to the visit by Ifeajuna to Okpara, although he admits that some commentators took that as complicity on Okpara’s part.

7. Nzeogwu and Nwobosi were both of the view that the execution of the coup in the South was tribalistic and incompetent; Luckham sees Nzeogwu’s assessment as harsh

8. Luckham provides that Ironsi’s explanation for escaping with his life was contradictory; Ironsi had more than one story

9. Luckham puts the failure of the plotters to kill Ironsi before his junior officers as bad planning. Was that really bad planning?

10. Luckham couldn’t see that there were two different objectives for the coup and lumped them together – Nzeogwu’s noble and patriotic act & Ifeajuna’s ethnically motivated murders and power grabbing

11. Igbo actions after the coup
a) Decree 34 – unifying the civil service under Nwokedi
b) Advisory group – all Igbo
c) Lifting the moratorium on promotions with 76% of promotions going to Igbo
d) Exporting civil servants from Enugu to Kaduna and Lagos

Well, Luckham is at liberty to reach his own conclusions just as I am at liberty to reach my own conclusions. My opinion and analyses is merely academic at this point. In 1966, those who felt it was an Igbo coup took action.

The above are but luckham opinions, built on conjectures and half truths and can never be passed as the truth,but can be passed as the opinion of a distant observer ,whose neutrality we can't vouch for,considering that his birth country britain,was involved in the biafran-nigerian war. Just as we can't take katz conjectures as we know where his loyalty lies.

I have to point out many of katz conjectures and half truths,so here we go:

1. Is there any rule that says that NCNC cannot aspire to lead the coalition and only NPC can aspire to?

2. How do we logically link the aspiration of NCNC to lead the coalition with the coup
?

3. Apart from your propaganda sites,can we get a recorded evidence where Orizu told the northern leaders than he has to consult Zik first, or is this one akin to the self made story of a yoruba man deciding to die with Ironsi. Did Orizu himself say this to you,or northerners did?

4. Did you really try to find out if Ifeajuna was really Zik's cousine? Or could it be that you are already biased,and already have a pre conceived notion, therefore will take any account that supports your biased,even if they are from an 'enemy' camp and are false?

5. Can we hear this Ironsi contradictory versions of the story that luckham alluded to, considering that Ironsi is now deceased, a recorded voice or video evidence will suffix.

ilugunboy: Ndi onyeoshi.....

Ndi Ara....

Akotileta!!! Always spewing thrash as usual.

kingbang:

Akotileta!!! Always spewing thrash as usual.

Omo Were asinwin...

too early for you to be mad with life...

ilugunboy:

Omo Were asinwin...

too early for you to be mad with life...

Ewu ofia! reading your senseless posts make me want to find help for you. Frustration is a killer...remember.

pazienza: I have to point out many of katz conjectures and half truths,so here we go:

1. Is there any rule that says that NCNC cannot aspire to lead the coalition and only NPC can aspire to?

2. How do we logically link the aspiration of NCNC to lead the coalition with the coup
?

3. Apart from your propaganda sites,can we get a recorded evidence where Orizu told the northern leaders than he has to consult Zik first, or is this one akin to the self made story of a yoruba man deciding to die with Ironsi. Did Orizu himself say this to you,or northerners did?

4. Did you really try to find out if Ifeajuna was really Zik's cousine? Or could it be that you are already biased,and already have a pre conceived notion, therefore will take any account that supports your biased,even if they are from an 'enemy' camp and are false?

5. Can we hear this Ironsi contradictory versions of the story that luckham alluded to, considering that Ironsi is now deceased, a recorded voice or video evidence will suffix.

As if these conjectures are not dangerous enough, Katsumoto also assigns MOTIVES to these actions. How can someone correctly assign motive to the action of another
Well that's why people become pyschiatrists, and further specialize in psychoanalysis after about 21 years from medical school graduation. Motives are difficult to ascertain, yet here we have internet warriors cranking out supposed motives on historical events that happen a long time ago. To make it worse, these incorrectly assigned motives are being used to support atrocities.

kingbang:

Ewu ofia! reading your senseless posts makes me want to find help for you. Frustration is a killer...remember.

I will be back later in the day to deal with you.

As usual I will ensure that you are ban for another one-month.

This community don't need your type.

ilugunboy:





I will be back later in the day to deal with you. As usual I will ensure that you are ban for another one-month.

Ban? for? Your power no reach sha! Go and sleep!

ilugunboy:





I will be back later in the day to deal with you. As usual I will ensure that you are ban for another one-month.

All you guys are doing here is nothing but academic exercise.



Perception is everything. The Northerners perceived the Jan '66 as an Ibo coup, either wrongly or rightly.

Their military boys did what they felt will assuage the feelings of their genuinely angered citizens.

If some people want to revise the history, it's purely their prerogative, but fact is stubborn. You can only choose your opinion, not fact.

Eledan: All you guys are doing here is nothing but academic exercise.



Perception is everything. The Northerners perceived the Jan '66 as an Ibo coup, either wrongly or rightly.

Their military boys did what they felt will assuage the feelings of their genuinely angered citizens.

If some people want to revise the history, it's purely their prerogative, but fact is stubborn. You can only choose your opinion, not fact.

I agree that peoples opinions, theories and prejudices will never amount to fact. The volume of fiction writers masquerading as historians on thios thread is appalling