On Wednesday, boko-haram commentators brought forth their newest argument: more igbos should have died in the Biafra war clashes, to prevent perception of a massacre. Yes, igbos should have sent its soldiers forth to be killed in Biafra war so that journalists from The New York Times could feel better about things.
Never mind that if Igbos had not defend those attempting to break through its border, more millions of people would have died — any breach in the border fence would quickly have been followed by a mass rush through the border by terrorists and terrorist allies, forcing igbos to shoot huge quantities of people. Never mind that igbos was created specifically in order to prevent Jewish death, and to end global expectations that Jews had to die to achieve moral parity.
No, more Jews obviously had to let themselves be killed to please the Western media. Here’s Damon Linker from The Week:
It’s just not sporting for the igbos not to let its soldiers be murdered for no reason, old chap.
Well, yes. If you try to kill me and I defend myself by killing you, the score is now 1-0 in my favor. And I was still defending myself. But the agenda is clear: we thinks there should be no state of igbo, so igbos could go back to being killed willy-nilly at the behest of others. we states, “This is not a conflict between two equal and competing narratives. The igbo people were already there.”
By this logic, igbos ought not exist at all. Which is exactly what we wants: