quote:Originally posted by Waypoint1Biafra: Daud you're right to some point.
It is called rape at gun point. Babaginda's marriage was not ceremonial or formal,it was forced. Most Igbo women at age 50 today married to Hausa men during the war were as a result of forced rape. One of my cousins poisened herself after a forced encounter with an Hausa soldier, too bad she was disowned at that time due to ignorance and she had to take her life. It is still considered a fruit from the poisenous tree for any Igbo woman to marry or engage in a sexual relationhip with Hausa or Yoruba; The Igbos are still a closed system when it comes to ethnic marriages. But I am sure it will change from time to time. The Igbos refers to non Igbos minus the Cross River and River states as Ndi Mba, meaning aliens or foreigners, one reason they value or protect their women. Too bad they could not protect them from prominent Hausas married to Igbo women, either, they don't get the message or they just can,t seem to get their hands off the cookie jar.There is some generic freakness among Hausa men to seek an Igbo woman for wife than their own, Hausa woman;it could be because of some chemical agent exhibited by Adaora that makes them feel the uncontrollable urge to gotta have her. Copy that, you silly reppellant skunk.
Hail Biafra
This is arrant garbage. Waypoint1Biafra is clearly talking about himself here or his immediate clan. I wish to state categorically that this opinion here does not represent me neither is it shared by people I know. It is not even a prevailing wisdom. I don't see why, in a bid to stick one to Daud (who we all know is just an agent provocateur), Waypoint1 now allows himself to make unprofitable assertions on behalf of the whole Igbo nation. I want no part in this nauseating show of ignorance and xenophobia.
If this topic is not considered exhausted yet, I suggest that people act like gentlemen and leave it until further issues regarding the Middle East crops up. If, as I suspect, emotions have taken over, then this is possibly my last contribution to this thread.
Psst, talk about cutting one's nose to spite one's face!
Not so fast, first of all either you have spend most of your life time outside Igbo land or you were Born after the Biafra-Nigeria war. Before the war non Igbos with exception of minorities from Old Eastern Nigeria. It was unimaginable for an Igbo woman to marry a Hausa or a Yoruba person. So when you said you are not part of this or you dismissed it as aren't nonsense. Either you were trying to perceify other ethnic groups in Nigeria, or you are trying to shy away from history. Like Waypoint rightly pointed out after the war many Igbo women were forced into marriage to Hausa military men or some did it out of hardship of the war. As a matter of fact up until few years ago, many of our sisters who married the Hausa and Yoruba military men were looked down. I have one from my Village who did it, up till today many people in my Village still consider her not married because she married to a non Igbo.
Now of course since after the war there has been so many inter tribal marriages which is not by force. So if you are talking about modern time then I will understand your point. Just like here in America, there are more inter racial marriages today in US than any other time in US history. Yes because of the Metroplitan nature of Igbos, many of our daughter and sons are now growing up in Lagos Abuja and many other places. for that reason of course they are going to choose spouse of a different tribe. My neice is married to a Yoruba boy they both live in NY. If I am to use that as a barometer to judge many Yoruba who are married to Igbos. I will not allow any more members of my relatives to marry a yoruba guy. My neice grew up in Ogun State, nobody asked me before she married this guy, today the whole family is suffering from it. Will I encourage my kids to marry non Igbos the answer is no. But if they choose to do it, I will live with it. So before you dimiss what Waypoint2Biafra said you need to do some digging if you are ignorant of the issue of inter tribal marriages before the war and after the war.
posted
Igbo is among the most liberal and least parochial nations on the African continent; Igbo/Biafrans gals have always had more freedom than others to date/marry other tribes. They have always been regarded as trophy wives/girl friends by the nations that surround Biafra. It would be wrong to say that the Igbo restrict the freedom of their women to do any man and anyone they wanted to, including men from other tribes. In Lagos in the '70s, yoroba/awusa men considered it dating up to have an Igbo/Biafran gal. I know because I lived and worked among them. An Igbo ho was considered upscale and fetched more naira for the Jon and the owner of the brothel.
I just don't know where Waypoint1 got the idea of trying to restrict the freedom of Igbo women to do as they please with their body, and with any man they like.
___________________ achieve Biafra and show the difference Posts: 643 | From: Los Angeles, CA | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Amadi You and Anaedo are missing the point and mixing apple and orange. There was never a time Igbos restricted their sons or daughter from been free of marrying who they want. The point waypoint was making here is the cultural pride Igbo women had before the war. You and Anaedo keeping talking about the 70s. Igbo was defiled once Yoruba and Hausa soldiers entered Igbo land. You and Anaedo need to educate your self. You guys keeping talking about the Hausa and yorubas you guys lived with since after the war. We are talking about before the war.
posted
I thought I respond to Daud, sorry I touched some nerves in plain truth......Now back to the Middle East, a land filled with bastardized Arabs and desert rats.
Isreal asked for the extension of the war before the truce to finish up Hezbollah; I say to the UN, leave Isreal alone, let them do your dirty work. Isreal may not be able to disarm the terrorist agents in one week or force them to admitt their existence but they certainly will cripple them. There is no doubt in mind after this war, Hezbullah will think twice before kidnapping an Isreali soldier or directly play a part in hounding Isreal; this is a lesson and they ought to learn from it. Don't mess with a super power.
Hail Biafra Posts: 1681 | From: Minnesota USA | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
'waypoint1biafra' nice one, you hit the nail in the head. For the past few days I have been arguing with friends about the importance of Israel defending themselves against terrorist organisations. It is far more dangerous for Israel not fight Hezbollah and any other group out there, that have sworn to eliminate Israel by any means necessary.
Though I fill sad for the number of innocent civilians that have lost their lives, however the truth of the matter is, the decision to go to war against Hezbollah means other terrorist organisations like 'Hamas' will not think of messing up with Israel.
___________________ Do not go against the will of GOD, let every nation govern themselves. Posts: 11 | From: united kingdom | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
posted
Israel Slaughters Scores of Innocent Children.
quote:Dozens killed in Lebanon air raid
Report from Qana More than 40 people, including 20 children, have been killed in an Israeli air strike on the southern Lebanese town of Qana. Displaced families had been sheltering in the basement of a site which was crushed after a direct hit.
The US secretary of state has cancelled a visit to Lebanon as its prime minister says he will only discuss a full and immediate ceasefire.
Hundreds of protesters are staging a violent demonstration in Beirut.
An angry crowd is attacking the UN building, chanting slogans against the US and in support of Hezbollah.
May God have mercy on the children. They came here to escape the fighting
Qana survivor
In pictures: Qana strike
"People are fed up in Lebanon," a protester told the BBC. "They are fed up."
Israel said the Shia militant group was responsible for the Qana strike, by using the town to launch rockets.
But Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora denounced Israel's "heinous crimes against civilians", and said there was "no room on this sad morning" for talks until Israel had halted its attacks.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she was "deeply saddened by the terrible loss of innocent life.
"We are also pushing for an urgent end to the current hostilities, but the views of the parties on how to achieve this are different," she said.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said earlier that Israel was not in a hurry to agree to a ceasefire until it achieved its goals in the area.
'Stop'
Witnesses said the early-morning strike flattened several sites on top of sleeping residents.
Mid-East crisis map Strategy debate grows
One survivor said the "bombing was so intense that no-one could move".
Reliable casualty figures are not yet clear, but reports said more than 40 had been killed, while sources in the Lebanese Red Cross said as many as 50 or 60 had lost their lives.
Elderly, women and children were among those killed in the raid, which wrought destruction over a wide area.
The BBC's Fergal Keane at the scene saw two small boys pulled from the rubble.
Reporters spoke of survivors screaming in grief and anger, as some scrabbled through the debris with bare hands.
HAVE YOUR SAY Surely the lives of the innocent should take precedent
Nikki, Warwickshire
Send us your views
"We want this to stop," a villager shouted.
"May God have mercy on the children. They came here to escape the fighting."
Israel's military said it had warned residents of Qana to leave and Hezbollah bore responsibility for using it to fire rockets at the Jewish state.
The BBC's Jim Muir in Qana says many did not have the means - or were too frightened - to flee.
Qana was the site of an Israeli bombing of a UN base on April 1996 that killed more than 100 people sheltering there during Israel's "Grapes of Wrath" offensive, which was also aimed at destroying Hezbollah.
Escalation
Sunday's strike came amid an apparent intensification of hostilities.
Israel has been battling Hezbollah fighters in southern Lebanon
The Shia militia is fighting Israeli forces following a new incursion into southern Lebanon.
Israeli gunboats off the coast near Tyre have been firing heavy-calibre shells into the hills, apparently in support of ground forces.
Correspondents say the question is whether this flare-up is part of an escalation that will continue despite diplomatic efforts to seek a ceasefire - or a sign that a truce may be coming soon, with the two sides trying to get a final blow in before the fighting stops.
Before the Qana attack, the UN said some 600 people - about a third of them children - had been killed by Israeli action in Lebanon since their operations began 19 days ago.
A total of 51 Israelis, including at least 18 civilians, have been killed in the conflict, sparked by Hezbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid earlier in July.
How could I be said to be "an agent provocateur?" Maybe the Germans of the 1930s and 1940s knew something about these Jews that the rest of the world is only now discovering. Who has ever seen such bloody and barbaric attacks on children by a group that claims to be a civilized nation?
Posts: 449 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
You don't need to persuade me on the horrors of war; or of the sadness of civilian casualties. Now, let us switch this up a bit.
I heard recently that Condi Rice is back in the region doing her best to initiate some kind of LASTING peace not a temporary ceasefire.
Question: If you were in a position of influence in this region (here, feel free to be any character whether Hassan Nasrallah, one of the heads of moderate governments in the region, Condi Rice, Bush or Shimon Peres),what TANGIBLE measures will you propose for lasting peace in this region?
Note:Please I need something constructive here, or I may not be responding; cos quite frankly, I have had enough of the usual rhetoric of war that has been filtering from both the Israeli and the Hezbollah side since the onset of this conflict.
Needless to say, I am not going to accept or even debate an answer that basically says Israel must be chucked out of the region or worse annihilated. If this represents your solution, then do me a favor and NOT respond.
posted
All over the net, I have noticed that most commentators on the Mideast crisis are reacting on a day-to-day basis; or working from past history to the present crisis. This is an opportunity for BNW to weigh in on something YET to happen by proffering realistic "solutions" to the crisis.
Afterall, everyone is an "advocate" on BNW, and I believe we have it in us to be diplomats. As such then, we realize that statements like "There will NEVER be peace in the MiddleEast" while seemingly true, should not be the language or predisposition of any diplomat worth his or her salt.
So, the question above is open to the entire board. Feel free to weigh in on what you believe must be done. Thanks.
posted
The only solution in that part of the Middle East is for Hezbullah to disarm themselves and respect the existence of Isreal, Iran quit as supplier of arms and Syria suspend it's terrorist advisement, is that too much to ask?
Hezbullah is a terrorist agent, a hostile occupant in a state of Lebanon, until they abide by the United Nation Resolution to disarm and incorporate their army in Labanon rather than a separate entity, the region will never be peaceful; they are in Lebanon for three reasons, Labanon is a libral state,a modern version of what other Arab nations are not and to disrupt the existence of Isreal. Isreal want peace and Arabs don't. Isreal's cruelty if any is obliged by the terrorist actions by the Arabs.But you cannot enforce the UN resolution if Hezbullah is not crippled. The only solution including the above is for Isreal to cripple Hezbullah and UN enforce their resolution, thereafter. Copy that.
Hail Biafra Posts: 1681 | From: Minnesota USA | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
Why do you insist on having a vacuous debate? You want a debate; but you wish to eliminate the very heart of the issue. What use is a debate that avoids the issues? You remind me of the Jews who insist that we ignore all UN resolutions calling on Israel to return stolen Arab lands. There is today only one UN resolution that Israel and the US wish to see enforced, the one that calls for Hezbollah to disarm. Israel is a creature of violence, and it rewards violence when we shy away from calling for the elimination of Israel from the Middle-East.
Ok, I'll humor you with a debate, if you 1) swear to always address the territory now called Israel by its proper pre-1945 name, PALESTINE. 2) Never use tall biblical tales to establish a link between this British-American contraption called Israel and the fictitious Land of Canaan, or is it "the promised land?"
Posts: 449 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
Don't change the subject. I have not called for another round of empty debates. Go over my last submission with a fine tooth comb. I merely beckoned on you to give, in your opinion, solutions to the crisis. Therefore, you do not need to "humour me with a debate" as this is not another one of those unproductive sessions where I try to debate confirmed bias. I am very careful about the words that I choose to express myself, so cut the game of subterfuge please.
Waypoint1Biafra has expressed his opinions on how the issue must be tackled. Surely, you can do the same or is this too taxing an assignment?
I'll advice that you drop the inherent hostility in your postings (you are not Israeli, Lebanese or Palestinian), so there is no need for brash talk that alienates your readers here (or elsewhere for that matter).
Question still remains: If you were in a position of influence in this region (here, feel free to be any character whether Hassan Nasrallah, one of the heads of moderate governments in the region, Condi Rice, Bush or Shimon Peres),what TANGIBLE measures will you propose for lasting peace in this region?
Let me re-emphasize that you do not even have to respond if you have no solutions to tender or you harbor deep disinclinations to stating them. Let us not waste our time here.
There is absolutely no hostility toward a good Alhaji like you. What would be the point of such hostility?
Just so there is no confusion, you wrote:
quote:If you were in a position of influence in this region (here, feel free to be any character whether Hassan Nasrallah, one of the heads of moderate governments in the region, Condi Rice, Bush or Shimon Peres),what TANGIBLE measures will you propose for lasting peace in this region?
Even for the purposes of a debate, I don't see why anyone would wish to assume for himself the sort of influences that Condi Rice, Bush or Shimon Peres have. Those characters are ineffectual, and the lack of morality in their policies is only one reason why. Hassan Nasrallah is doing exactly what he should be doing, defending his country against Zionist terrorists. A more imaginative thing would be for you to call for a discussion on the Middle-East question without attaching the discussion to photo opportunists you mentioned. I, for one, would give more weight to something that comes out of your mind than I would to the cisis that is George Bush's mind.
Also, the term heads of moderate governments in the region is a Zionist construct. That you would use such a term to characterize US-sponsored puppets in the region would immediately make a mockery of the dialogue, which you seek.
Unless you have adopted the lazy and diplomatically obscene posturing of Condolezza Rice as your own position, you should kick off the discussion by proffering your own solutions to the problem.
[ July 31, 2006, 12:32 AM: Message edited by: Daud ]
Posts: 449 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I feel very uncomfortable with Israeli conduct in Lebanon. There is no doubt the two sides hate each other with passion and Hezbollah will probably be just as vicious as Israel if it had the military superiority. That said, I think one has to acknowledge that evidence so far shows Israel has indiscrimitaely bombed Lebanon leading to unacceptable deaths and injuries amongst civilians. Sometimes looking at the figures I wonder if the target is civilians and militant deaths just happen to be collateral damage. It is difficult to see it otherwise if you consider that fewer that 50 of the estimated 700 lebanese dead are militants. Ironically, most of 50 - 60 Israeli dead are soldiers which raises the question if indeed Hezbollah has more experience of 'precision bombing' than Israel.
Equally despicable is the role of the UK and US so far. The idea that innocent people should continue to be massacred while they work out sustainable ceasefire is stupid and inhumane.Do they actually believe themselves when they parrot these disgraceful lines about inventing lasting solutions that have eluded them for decades?
Posts: 621 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Once again Isreal has restrianed it fly bangers for 48 hours, even extended it for another 24 hours to investigate the so-called "Unacceptable death" showing it's civility; however, the Hezbullah refused to follow suit; now who is actually for peace?
Hezbullah should be accountable for the "Unacceptable" child killings for using the children as human shield. No one in his right mind wants children/civilians killed, not if the Hezbullah could help it. To blame Isreal is to appease the delibrate and culpability of Hezbullah. Isreal distributed leaflets warning civilians to leave the area before it's sky bangers dropped the bomb therefore Hezbullah is also accountable for the deaths of the children/civilians for launching the rockets in the midst of the children, a tactical stupidity well established by Arab nations for one purpose only, degrade the humanity of it's enemies and tilt the scale for sympathizers, in this case the UN and some members of this site.
Hail Biafra Posts: 1681 | From: Minnesota USA | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Waypoint1Biafra, You have brillantly concluded this debate. Isreal is doing nothing wrong, but defending itself. The six years of quiet in south Lebanon is what gave this terorrist group hezbullah and their supporters the opportunity to acquire the long range missiles they are now firing at Isreal today. The entire world can screem all they want, for me i have long concluded that there is no justice in this world anymore. Not long ago, the madman who is leading Iran presently called for the removal of Isreal on the world map. That statement alone is act of war and yet people are here blaming Isreal for war they did not start. Come on men. What was the world's response when nigeria committed act of genocide against Igbos? What about Ruwanda? The world must face the reality that no power in the middle east can defeat Isreal. I hope people have not forgotten that in 1967 the entire Arab world came together and made an attempt to mess with Isreal. Isreal responded swiftly and where just 101 kilometer into cairo. Hezbullah can not be using civilians as a sheild and expect anything other than what they are seeing now in the number of civilian deaths.
Posts: 524 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Hi guys i'm not really a member of this forum, and infact i came accross it by accident while trying to get news about some going-ons in naija. but what continues to amase me is the level of argument posted on the board and in order for me to make sense out of the whole thing i am tempted to assume that you guys all know each other and you are only trying to make jest of one another, and more so seeing that you are almost all lawyers please correct me if i am wrong as this to me is the only explanation i can offer for now on the various comments posted here. also why the term biafranigeria, why not just nigeria. i believe this way it would attract more commentators and would provide a more robust platform for rubbing mind with fellow nigerians especially those who feel so lonesome and need other nigerians to tete-e-tete. dont want to drill a hole in your pot though, just my views.I'll be back when next i'm free. thanks
Posts: 36 | From: united kingdom | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
posted
hahaha now i know why the advocate thing appears. i thought it was original but now i know better, for i certianly did not fill that in my form.
Posts: 36 | From: united kingdom | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
quote: Isreal is doing nothing wrong, but defending itself... -Chima Njoku
After weeks of seeing the daily pictures of innocent Lebanese children getting slain and maimed over the past months, I find something inherently wrong with that statement and attitude. Wickedness, Evil and Injustice should never be rationalised away, nor covered in the guise of self defence. To be sure, Israel has a right to defend itself when attacked. But it has a duty to make sure that it defends itself against its aggressors (Heezbola $ co) and not just bombing innocent civillians anyhow. Ofcourse how counter productive can you get? If I where the father of one of those children who lost his whole family to indiscriminate Israeli bombing or shelling, what would be left for me? Is it not to kill as many Israeli as possible before I join my family in yonder? Definetely I will become a genral of Heezbollah and sloughter enough of them for anihilating my innocent family in the name of their self defence. The Israelis have to come to the realisation that they are fighting a gurillia war, not a regular army. Therefore their bombing strategy can only be counter productive, since their enemy offer no permanent base or headquarters nor other stationary military targets. their missile launchers are mobile and their success depends on mobility. The Israelis only end up bombing the places the militants where just hours ago, thereby mashing up the civillians, killing the children, while the Heezbola is long gone. That to my mind is not self defence but slaughter. Similar arguments of self defence have been used by despots and terror regimes all over the ages to rationalise their slaughter of innocent human beings. This argument and tactics have been used successfuly against the Igbo prior to, during and even after the war to justify the genocide there. Therefore as a result of that experience, I tend to review claims of self defence criticaly, and I must say from all evidence avaliable through the media: "THIS ONE DON PASS SELF DEFENCE". When innocent children are being killed can it ever honestly be described as self defence?
___________________ Biafra is inevitable.Illegitimis nil carborundum. Posts: 760 | From: europe | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
I agree with you. I will go further and say thet these Jews are crazed; they think that the rest of the world is made up of fools. Mark my words; as soon as the Jews finish slaughtering those children in Lebanon, you will start to see a lot of movies being made or shown to remind everyone about "the holocaust." I am starting to think that much of what we think we know about the so-called "holocaust" is nothing but Jewish propaganda, just like the propaganda that is now coming out of the Jewish media in the Middle-East.
Arabs doesn't have problem slautering innocent people either so why should Isrrael not do everything possible to defend herself. Israel didn't start this the Hazebola started it. Unfortunately in war innocent people get caught in a cross fire. Israel have the right to exist. What about innocent Igbo children killed in Muslim Nigeria all the time in the name of religion.
Mureed To answer your question why Biafranigeria. The answer is that in 1970 when Moses Effiong signed the seize fire agreement. The agreement stated Biafra-Nigeria. At no time did the statement said that Biafra is no longer in existence. Click on writers blog in this site you will see the tribute to People's General Effiong by Brother Nnamdi Nwuda alluding to that statement in his tribute to Moses Effiong.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
