Was Awo Guilty Of War Crimes? - Politics (2) - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Politics / Was Awo Guilty Of War Crimes? (4387 Views)
Probe, Jail Jonathan If Found Guilty – NEF / Most Politicians Guilty Of False Assets Declaration – Okunrounmu / Boko-Haram Members May Face War Crimes Charges – UN (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (Reply) (Go Down)
| Re: Was Awo Guilty Of War Crimes? by kunlekunle: 5:47am On Oct 14, 2012 |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSqhqP3U-t4&feature=relmfu Watch from 2;30 Biafran baby soldiers. This to me is self afflicted pain and a form of suicide These were the children prepared for the propaganda. 5:40 Post war officers even looked fresher than Gowon 6:00 post war people. There was no frail nor sick. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An7IZBBATTM&feature=relmfu Self prophesy often leads to self fulfillment and it leads to destruction Talking about common cultural development issues, and rural lifestyle |
| Re: Was Awo Guilty Of War Crimes? by kunlekunle: 5:48am On Oct 14, 2012 |
| Re: Was Awo Guilty Of War Crimes? by Katsumoto: 1:02am On Oct 15, 2012 |
osunmakin: katsumoto. pls can u share me ur library; especially the electronic version (i.e. if possible). my email is ooige@oauife.edu.ng Do you mean the titles/authors of the books? I take it you mean books related to Nigerian history?? I typically prefer actual books to electronic versions but will search Google books for quotes in books I may have read. |
| Re: Was Awo Guilty Of War Crimes? by Katsumoto: 1:42am On Oct 15, 2012 |
@ OP I decided to copy and paste Article 23 of the Geneva convention. Pay particular attention to the parts in bold Section B. Sieges that cause starvation I. Treaties Geneva Convention IV Article 23 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: Each High Contracting Party shall allow the free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores and objects necessary for religious worship [b][size=14pt]intended only for civilians of another High Contracting Party, even if the latter is its adversary. It shall likewise permit the free passage of all consignments of essential foodstuffs, clothing and tonics intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers and maternity cases. The obligation of a High Contracting Party to allow the free passage of the consignments indicated in the preceding paragraph is subject to the condition that this Party is satisfied that there are no serious reasons for fearing: (a) that the consignments may be diverted from their destination, (b) that the control may not be effective, or (c) that a definite advantage may accrue to the military efforts or economy of the enemy through the substitution of the above-mentioned consignments for goods which would otherwise be provided or produced by the enemy or through the release of such material, services or facilities as would otherwise be required for the production of such goods. The Power which allows the passage of the consignments indicated in the first paragraph of this Article may make such permission conditional on the distribution to the persons benefited thereby being made under the local supervision of the Protecting Powers. Such consignments shall be forwarded as rapidly as possible, and the Power which permits their free passage shall have the right to prescribe the technical arrangements under which such passage is allowed.[/size][/b] Back to top II. Other Instruments Lieber Code Article 18 of the 1863 Lieber Code provides: When a commander of a besieged place expels the noncombatants, in order to lessen the number of those who consume his stock of provisions, it is lawful, though an extreme measure, to drive them back, so as to hasten on the surrender. www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule53 From the above, we can draw the following 1. Civilians are only allowed medical supplies 2. Food is for children under 15, expectant mothers and maternity cases. 3. The power laying siege may choose to make conditions for the passage of supplies 4. The power laying seige can prescribe the technical arrangements for the supply of aid. Gowon turned a blind eye to nighttime flights for 16 months and only implemented a total blockade in June 1969, six months before the war ended. It is clear that the war may have dragged on for longer, if Gowon hadn't done this and more would have died. 5. The article provides that the power laying seige may object to aid supplies if the party under siege will obtain a military and economic advantage. We know Biafra gained an advantage from aid because it CHARGED fees to NGOs supplying aid. It used these fees to supply currency and buy arms. 6. The article provides that the power laying seige may object to aid supplies if the party under siege diverts the supplies to other destinations. We also know that Biafran soldiers diverted food away from its civilian population. From the preceding, it is obvious that the Federal side demonstrated good faith. Biafran high command was responsible for the starvation of its citizens. |
| Re: Was Awo Guilty Of War Crimes? by Katsumoto: 1:46am On Oct 15, 2012 |
To add to the post above Page 245 from the John de St. Jorre's book: "This I think, unfairly maligns his intentions and underestimates his authority. He did, after all, not only fulfil Nigeria's commitment to the Geneva Conventions, but go some ways beyond it. He turned a blind eye to the illegal night-flying into Biafra for fifteen months; he accepted the presence of an International Observer Team to allay fears of genocide and keep an eye on the conduct of the Federal troops (that the team was a British suggestion does not detract from Gowon's merit in accepting it); and he did agree to the daylight relief flights to Biafra provided that they planes were checked by the government and followed routes of its choice -- both normal controls under the Geneva Conventions. That the Biafrans did not accept these conditions does not mean Gowon was insincere in his offer." |
| Re: Was Awo Guilty Of War Crimes? by Nobody: 2:49am On Oct 15, 2012 |
Arguments based on facts win and not those based on pure sentiments and conjectures Katsumoto...I can clearly see the hand of the OP as that of the guy that claims to be Yoruba at every opportunity on the other thread that Dayo wiped his arse. He has surfaced here under a new moniker.  |
| Re: Was Awo Guilty Of War Crimes? by Katsumoto: 3:14am On Oct 15, 2012 |
ilugunboy: Arguments based on facts win and not those based on pure sentiments and conjectures You may be right. I have been seeing lots of new IDs since Achebe's book was released. Of course arguments based on facts trump anyday. Some don't even bother to read documents that they are presenting. From the wording of the Geneva articles, it is clear that it would be impossible for Biafra to prove starvation. 2 Likes |
| Re: Was Awo Guilty Of War Crimes? by Katsumoto: 3:21am On Oct 15, 2012 |
Please see below for further evidence of genocide/starvation being crushed. Go to page 4 and read "Canadian General Lashes Pro Biafran Humanitarians" The Canadian General who was an International observer also gave his views. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ai9mAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1YoNAAAAIBAJ&pg=3771 Can anyone copy and paste the article? |
| Re: Was Awo Guilty Of War Crimes? by cjrane: 4:25am On Oct 15, 2012 |
Awolowo was the worst mass murderer born in Africa.Unfortunately, African lives didn't matter much to the powers that be in the international community. But, It didn't change the fact that he was a gruesome war criminal. The U.N. Treaty The treaty defines genocide as the destruction of "a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group." Whereas the Nuremberg trials were conducted by an international military tribunal and specified that "crimes against humanity" related to war crimes, the 1951 U.N. Treaty encompasses war and peace: Article I The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish. Article II In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Read more: Genocide: How is it Defined? http://www.infoplease.com/spot/genocide1.html#ixzz29Kos6X4E |
| Re: Was Awo Guilty Of War Crimes? by cjrane: 4:42am On Oct 15, 2012 |
THE GENEVA CONVENTION ON CONDUCT OF WARFARE The Rome Treaty of 1998-2002 creating the International Criminal Court defined war crimes at §8, at great length as is typical with treaties, and as follows: (a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention: (i) Wilful killing; (ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments; (iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health; (iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; (v) Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power; (vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial; (vii) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement; (viii) Taking of hostages. (b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts: (i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities; (ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives; (iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict; (iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated; (v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives; (vi) Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion; (vii) Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury; (viii) The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory; (ix) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives; (x) Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons; (xi) Killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army; (xii) Declaring that no quarter will be given; (xiii) Destroying or seizing the enemy's property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war; (xiv) Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party; (xv) Compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war; (xvi) Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault; (xvii) Employing poison or poisoned weapons; (xviii) Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices; (xix) Employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions; (xx) Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123; (xxi) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (xxii) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence also constituting a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions; (xxiii) Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations; (xxiv) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law; (xxv) Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions; (xxvi) Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities. Nuremberg war crime defendants (1946)(c) In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause: (i) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (ii) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (iii) Taking of hostages; (iv) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable. (....) (e) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts: (i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities; (ii) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law; (iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict; (iv) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives; (v) Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault; (vi) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, and any other form of sexual violence also constituting a serious violation of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions; (vii) Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities; (viii) Ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand; (ix) Killing or wounding treacherously a combatant adversary; (x) Declaring that no quarter will be given; (xi) Subjecting persons who are in the power of another party to the conflict to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons; (xii) Destroying or seizing the property of an adversary unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of the conflict." Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, at Chapter 24, Statutes of Canada 2000, takes a more succinct approach: "war crime means an act or omission committed during an armed conflict that, at the time and in the place of its commission, constitutes a war crime according to customary international law or conventional international law applicable to armed conflicts, whether or not it constitutes a contravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its commission." Obafemi Awolowo is guilty of violating all the highlighted parts of the Geneva convention on conduct of warfare. |
| Re: Was Awo Guilty Of War Crimes? by cjrane: 4:50am On Oct 15, 2012 |
PARTICULARLY, Geneva convention article 25 clearly states thus; (xxv) Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions; This article of Geneva convention was violated by Awolowo and he proudly proclaimed he had no intentions of respecting this law. Those who still argue he was not a war criminal should cover their ugly faces in shame. 1 Like |
| Re: Was Awo Guilty Of War Crimes? by CyberG: 5:06am On Oct 15, 2012 |
Yes, WAR is about destroying your ENEMY. If war is a crime, the criminal is the person who started it, ojuku in this case. Like Hitler, he should have allowed himself to be shot and burned immediately. He probably failed most of his history courses (his major BTW) for had no clue of how in WW 2, both Germany and the Allies tried to blockade and starve their enemies into surrender. But iboz like that he killed 3 M, there's no reason anyone or any court would even waste time to look at a silly case. Iboz thought war was soldiers singing lullabies to the ragtag, loser biafran army. 3 Likes |
| Re: Was Awo Guilty Of War Crimes? by cjrane: 5:40am On Oct 15, 2012 |
CyberG: Yes, WAR is about destroying your ENEMY. If war is a crime, the criminal is the person who started it, ojuku in this case. Like Hitler, he should have allowed himself to be shot and burned immediately. He probably failed most of his history courses (his major BTW) for had no clue of how in WW 2, both Germany and the Allies tried to blockade and starve their enemies into surrender. But iboz like that he killed 3 M, there's no reason anyone or any court would even waste time to look at a silly case. Iboz thought war was soldiers singing lullabies to the ragtag, loser biafran army. Yeye ediot, War is about fighting those who have taken up arms and you must stop once they lay down their arms. It is not about killing off the innocent children who did not even know what the dispute is about.Awolowo your god is a war criminal and he is cooling off in hell right now.Deal with it! |
| Re: Was Awo Guilty Of War Crimes? by CyberG: 6:59am On Oct 15, 2012 |
cjrane: They are yeye idio.ts in your family, that is why you are exhibiting this foolis.hness which runs in your empty head. NOTE: There is NO way for you to determine or decide if an enemy you took up war with will stop if you lay down your arms. You do not decide the terms of surrender for as long as he is beating you silly. Ther Germans and Japanese tried to surrender on their own terms but NEVER. Stalin continued beating down Germany and the Japanese after they were obviously tired and lost the war. Tell ojuku to learn the lesson. And yes, when the civilians clap and support the rebellious war mongers like iboz did, it was natural that they share in the consequences of his actions. SIMPLE! |
| Re: Was Awo Guilty Of War Crimes? by cjrane: 7:00am On Oct 15, 2012 |
CyberG:crap de smell |
| Re: Was Awo Guilty Of War Crimes? by Nobody: 7:07am On Oct 15, 2012 |
cjrane: Loser! disprove what he said ...and leave the smelling crap ! |
| Re: Was Awo Guilty Of War Crimes? by Duchman67: 7:25am On Oct 15, 2012 |
CyberG: Yes, WAR is about destroying your ENEMY. If war is a crime, the criminal is the person who started it, ojuku in this case. Like Hitler, he should have allowed himself to be shot and burned immediately. He probably failed most of his history courses (his major BTW) for had no clue of how in WW 2, both Germany and the Allies tried to blockade and starve their enemies into surrender. But iboz like that he killed 3 M, there's no reason anyone or any court would even waste time to look at a silly case. Iboz thought war was soldiers singing lullabies to the ragtag, loser biafran army.You forgot to mention that Germany/Japan invaded other sovereign countries while Biafra just wanted to leave Nigeria and be left alone since the government of Nigeria(and much of the rest of the country) got involved with killing defenceless Igbos even before the declaration of Biafra. |
| Re: Was Awo Guilty Of War Crimes? by Duchman67: 7:48am On Oct 15, 2012 |
Red-Light:The apparent aim of these particular discussions is to deny political support to any south west/North presidential ambition in south east areas. And at the very least continue support to MEND and other south south/south east groups to cut crude oil production to zero or close to zero if the region does not maintain control of the presidency.It is the new paradigm if those with oil in their "backyard" are not in-charge of distributing national wealth then no oil will flow.The Nigerian army aka the northern army will in effect have to occupy and subdue the entire south south/south east regions to reverse this and that is extremely unlikey. |
| Re: Was Awo Guilty Of War Crimes? by cjrane: 9:40am On Oct 15, 2012 |
Duchman67: The apparent aim of these particular discussions is to deny political support to any south west/North presidential ambition from south east areas. And at the very least continue support to MEND and other south south/south east groups to cut crude oil production to zero or close to zero if the region does not maintain control of the presidency.It is the new paradigm if those with oil in their "backyard" are not in-charge of distributing national wealth then no oil will flow.The Nigerian army aka the northern army will in effect have to occupy and subdue the entire south south/south east regions to reverse this and that is extremely unlikey. lol.. |
| Re: Was Awo Guilty Of War Crimes? by Nobody: 10:06am On Oct 15, 2012 |
Duchman67: The apparent aim of these particular discussions is to deny political support to any south west/North presidential ambition from south east areas. And at the very least continue support to MEND and other south south/south east groups to cut crude oil production to zero or close to zero if the region does not maintain control of the presidency.It is the new paradigm if those with oil in their "backyard" are not in-charge of distributing national wealth then no oil will flow.The Nigerian army aka the northern army will in effect have to occupy and subdue the entire south south/south east regions to reverse this and that is extremely unlikey. Be careful what you wish for...... |
| Re: Was Awo Guilty Of War Crimes? by T9ksy(m): 10:55am On Oct 15, 2012 |
Duchman67: You forgot to mention that Germany/Japan invaded other sovereign countries [b]while Biafra just wanted to leave Nigeria and be left alone [/b]since the government of Nigeria(and much of the rest of the country) got involved with killing defenceless Igbos even before the declaration of Biafra. @ bolded, did you read that part before actually posting it? Biafrans wants to be left ALONE so they went about occupying their neighbours' territory and were on their way to "liberating" even more land. Is that how one behaves in your neck of the woods when they want to be left ALONE? Very much "Ibotic" (reasoning), i would say. 1 Like |
| Re: Was Awo Guilty Of War Crimes? by Akanbiedu(m): 11:51am On Oct 15, 2012 |
I think it's not necessary to assume the nationality of the poster, especially if it's not a well known ID. For all I care, it could be an Hausa, Igbo, Ijaw or even a non-Nigeria/foreigner. Katsumoto: I believe those two questions answered the poster. CASE CLOSED. |
| Re: Was Awo Guilty Of War Crimes? by Katsumoto: 1:37pm On Oct 15, 2012 |
Some of these chaps don't even bother to understand the literature they are citing. First, with more than the necessary 60 ratifications, the Rome Statute came into force, with effect from 1 July 2002. Article 24 Non-retroactivity ratione personae 1. No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct prior to the entry into force of the Statute. 2. In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgement, the law more favourable to the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted shall apply. No Nigerian can be found guilty of war crimes because 1967-70 predates the coming into force of the treaty. Second, "He who comes into equity must come with clean hands" At the onset of the war, did Biafra not bomb civilian populations in Lagos? If Nigeria is guilty of war crimes, then Biafra is equally guilty of war crimes. The interpretation of war crimes is not who did it more, it is whether it took place. |
| Re: Was Awo Guilty Of War Crimes? by demmie1: 2:44pm On Oct 15, 2012 |
cjrane: THE GENEVA CONVENTION ON CONDUCT OF WARFAREYou are definitely out of your senses |
| Re: Was Awo Guilty Of War Crimes? by Duchman67: 3:26pm On Oct 15, 2012 |
It seems Awo was not to blame as pointed out by USA Department of State pdf(http://premiumtimesng.com/dev/wp-content/files/2012/10/U.S._Biafra_Cable1.pdf) and a lot of us will like to apologize for the comments made about his actions. Please accept our apologies for making what appears to be an ill-informed argument and bear in mind that most Igbos wish the Yoruba race well. 3 Likes |
| Re: Was Awo Guilty Of War Crimes? by Genius100: 4:42pm On Oct 15, 2012 |
Duchman67: It seems Awo was not to blame as pointed out by USA Department of State pdf(http://premiumtimesng.com/dev/wp-content/files/2012/10/U.S._Biafra_Cable1.pdf) and a lot of us will like to apologize for the comments made about his actions. Please accept our apologies for making what appears to be an ill-informed argument and bear in mind that most Igbos wish the Yoruba race well. In all my 15 years of participating in online debates, I've never seen anyone change their position on a topic like this. Major major respect to you.. |
| Re: Was Awo Guilty Of War Crimes? by cjrane: 5:45pm On Oct 15, 2012 |
Third Geneva Convention of 1949 Art 54. Protection of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population 1. Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited. 2. It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as food-stuffs, agricultural areas for the production of food-stuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive. Was Awolowo guilty of this violation? YES ! Definitely he did intentionally violate this article and even proudly proclaimed to a bewildered world, that he had no intention whatsoever of respecting this article ! . The PM Harold Wilson led British government ought to be ashamed for keeping quiet while Awolowo committed such heinous crimes against humanity in the name of warfare. PM. Harold Wilson soiled the proud British history of respecting laws of warfare by colluding with a war criminal like Awolowo to kill African babies and women by starvation. |
| Re: Was Awo Guilty Of War Crimes? by Genius100: 6:44pm On Oct 15, 2012 |
cjrane: Third Geneva Convention of 1949 Guy, why are you being dishonest? What you just posted was promulgated in 1977 under the first article.. |
| Re: Was Awo Guilty Of War Crimes? by CyberG: 9:05pm On Oct 15, 2012 |
cjrane: Third Geneva Convention of 1949 This REPTILE is INSANE!
|
| Re: Was Awo Guilty Of War Crimes? by cjrane: 4:06pm On Oct 16, 2012 |
Genius100: When enemy territory is subject to belligerent occupation, the legal position as regards humanitarian assistance to the local civilian population is the clearest. Article 55(1) of the 1949 Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War prescribes that "[T]o the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores, and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate."[color=#990000][/color] http://ihl.ihlresearch.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewPage&pageID=808&nodeID=2 Don't be silly. The provision that forbids the denial of food or medical supplies to civilians caught in an armed conflict has been International law since 1949. Besides, Awolowo was guilty of more than that, he used his gray hair to command a lot of respect and influence from Gowon who was merely 33 years old then. Awo insisted that Nigeria would not permit humanitarian flights into Biafra and convinced Gowon to order the shooting down of a clearly marked Red Cross relief aircraft in broad daylight! Which in itself is another severe breach of international humanitarian law. See US department of state telegrams on Nigeria civil war; Telegram 71 of June 6th,1969. http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/e5/c15646.htm http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1774&dat=19690605&id=UDwgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NmYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2615,1633574 |
| Re: Was Awo Guilty Of War Crimes? by Duchman67: 9:34am On Oct 17, 2012 |
ilugunboy:In the event of occupation by Nigerian army,it will set off a full blown insurgency generally funded by profits from the past 20+ years of bunkering.The aim is to make extensive use IEDs and hit and run tactics against the occupying force which will lash out against the local population creating a very hostile environment for foreign oil companies to operate and eventually consider operations unprofitable. As Nigeria does not have the technology to operate these oil fields, crude oil production will remain close to zero. |
| Re: Was Awo Guilty Of War Crimes? by cjrane: 2:49am On Oct 28, 2012 |
Duchman67: In the event of occupation by Nigerian army,it will set off a full blown insurgency generally funded by profits from the past 20+ years of bunkering.The aim is to make extensive use IEDs and hit and run tactics against the occupying force which will lash out against the local population creating a very hostile environment for foreign oil companies to operate and eventually consider operations unprofitable. As Nigeria does not have the technology to operate these oil fields, crude oil production will remain close to zero. I have always maintained that it is the magnanimity and docility of the oil producing Niger Delta communities that have sustained this charade we call country. It is very interesting to note that criminally insane folks like Awolowo that used elaborate deceptive gimmicks to fool these communities into believing their interest was protected by the Nigerian state is increasingly exposed every day. The Yoruba themselves now have to struggle for relevance in Nigeria. Yoruba have been effectively eliminated from Presidency& the vice, Senate President &vice, Speaker of the House & vice. So,they are no longer in any position to manipulate anything in Nigeria.This trend is likely to continue unless they are saved with the ongoing constitutional amendment that advocates a formula for sharing of posts according to Geo-political zones. |
Igbos Vow To Boycott Spectranet 4G Owned By Akiolu. / Breaking News: Buhari Has Succeeded In Turning Ogoni Land Into War Zone(graphic / Kwakwanso Vs Jonathan, What Goes Around, Comes Around. Picture.
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 136 |