Posted on 12/14/2006 3:15:09 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
Harare, Zimbabwe (AHN) - Zimbabwe will not turn over former Former Former Ethiopian dictator Mengistu Haile Miriam, despite his conviction of genocide.
William Nhara, a spokesperson for President Robert Mugabe's government, says, "As a comrade of our struggle, Comrade Mengistu and his government played a key and commendable role during our struggle for independence and no one can dispute that."
"The judgment is an Ethiopian judgment and will not affect his status in Zimbabwe. As far as we know there is no extradition treaty between Harare and Addis Ababa."
Mengistu, who has been living in exile in Zimbabwe since he fell from power in 1991, was convicted of charges ranging from genocide, to imprisonment, homicide, and illegal confiscation of property.
Ethiopia's Federal High Court convicted Mengistu and 71 other defendants for their parts in the "Red Terror." According to the U.S. government, "The enormity of government-sponsored operations against suspected political opponents during the 'Red Terror' has defied accurate analysis and has made attempts at quantification of casualties irrelevant."
"Sources estimated that, during 1977-78, about 30,000 people had perished as a result of the Red Terror and harsh conditions in prisons, kebele jails, and concentration camps."
So an open ditch full of crap flowing down the middle of the street is not a craphole? Simply delusional...but hey, at least you revealed where you're getting your drinking water. Only a diseased mind such as your own could see a bunch of crap in a hole in the middle of the street and insist that it was not crap in a hole.
and so your characterization of entire countries as latrines reveals your anti-African biases
I'm certain Africa would be perfectly nice place if they threw out all the dictators, rounded up the scam artists, practiced basic hygeine, expelled the mahometans, instituted free markets, and quit crapping in the middle of the street. But right now most of them have all of the aforementioned problems, hence my determination that most of Africa constitutes a third world craphole.
It's not a country.
'm certain Africa would be perfectly nice place if they threw out all the dictators, rounded up the scam artists, practiced basic hygeine, expelled the mahometans, instituted free markets, and quit crapping in the middle of the street. But right now most of them have all of the aforementioned problems, hence my determination that most of Africa constitutes a third world craphole.
And hence my determination that you are biased against Africans.
It's a recurring and defining feature of several african countries.
And hence my determination that you are biased against Africans.
Strange. You speak of having a bias against raw sewage and third world dictatorships as if it is a bad thing.
I said you were biased against Africans. If you consider them to be "raw sewage", that further proves my point.
I'm sure there are plenty of lovely African people out there. Their continent and countries on the other hand leave much to be desired for the aforementioned reasons.
If you consider them to be "raw sewage", that further proves my point.
I don't believe I ever called African people raw sewage. I only said they swim in it...
...and that you apparently drink from it, thus explaining your diseased mind.
When I said you were biased against AfricansM/b>, you responded by asking if it was bad to be biased against raw sewage.
...and that you apparently drink from it, thus explaining your diseased mind.
And pray tell, why is it "apparent" that I drink from water containing raw sewage?
...thus mischaracterizing my position in your typical fashion.
you responded by asking if it was bad to be biased against raw sewage.
Which was my original position, namely that most African countries are third world crapholes.
And pray tell, why is it "apparent" that I drink from water containing raw sewage?
Because you hail from a region where that custom is commonplace, and your mind is obviously diseased from the contaminents.
...thus mischaracterizing my position in your typical fashion.
you responded by asking if it was bad to be biased against raw sewage.
Which was my original position, namely that most African countries are third world crapholes.
And pray tell, why is it "apparent" that I drink from water containing raw sewage?
Because you hail from a region where that custom is commonplace, and your mind is obviously diseased from the contaminents.
And how do you claim to know this absent any factual evidence?
No, you've 1) called African countries "crapholes" 2) refused to consider as a "reliable source" what you assumed to be "a small West African newspaper" and 3) have consitently denigrated the contributions and motives of African troops in World War 2.
The factual evidence is the the symptoms and your posts are symptomatic of a diseased mind.
Do you deny that your mind is diseased? Then give me a reason to believe you are sensible. Give me a reason to believe that your drinking water doesn't look and smell like the Niger River.
I've yet to see any evidence that this description is inaccurate.
2) refused to consider as a "reliable source" what you assumed to be "a small West African newspaper" and
Considering that their website rivals the sophistication of a geocities page, let's just say they're no Wall Street Journal.
3) have consitently denigrated the contributions and motives of African troops in World War 2.
No. I asked you to substantiate their claimed importance and, more specifically, to substantiate your portrayal of them as predominantly muslim. Since it took you two weeks of evasion before you even produced specific numbers, it is fair to say that you had great difficulty with those requests.
Again, since African countries are not literal latrines, describing them as "crapholes" is an opinion and not a fact.
Considering that their website rivals the sophistication of a geocities page, let's just say they're no Wall Street Journal.
It's interesting to know that you prefer to "judge a book by its cover" than on its merits. Needless to say, dismissing an idea based on its packaging alone is not an intellectual argument that would be considered "reliable by any academic standard."
Since it took you two weeks of evasion before you even produced specific numbers, it is fair to say that you had great difficulty with those requests.
It's possible to say that I had difficulty, but it would be more accurate to say that I did not have the specific numbers your requested at hand.
The factual evidence is the the symptoms and your posts are symptomatic of a diseased mind.
This is ridiculous. Attention to logic, historical accuracy, and a precise use of words are hardly symptoms of a diseased mind. I will ask you to refrain from unsubstantiated personal attacks in the future.
Given the abundance of raw sewage in many African cities that's a very debatable assertion. The Niger River looks and smells like a giant toilet. Lagos looks and smells like crap. So who's to say that places like Nigeria are not what they look and smell like?
It's interesting to know that you prefer to "judge a book by its cover" than on its merits.
That presumes the book you were handing out even had a cover. We're not comparing the WSJ website with a less sophisticated but nonetheless clean website of a small town U.S. paper. We're comparing ANY reputable newspaper website with geocities. And yes, when a "newspapers" website gives no reason to conclude that it is more reliable than 99% of all the other junk on the web, I will remain skeptical and demand better sources.
It's possible to say that I had difficulty, but it would be more accurate to say that I did not have the specific numbers your requested at hand.
Except that you also harped about your original unsourced claims for two weeks and responded to my reasonable requests for better numbers with overt hostility. Such behavior is a sign of a severely diseased mind, thus further supporting my contention that you ingest water from the Niger River.
You've given me no reason to believe that your bizarre posting habits are the product of anything other than disease. You've also given me no reason to believe that you get your water from anywhere other than the rest of the third world craphole you came from. If you contend otherwise provide a reason for me to believe you.
No, it's not. And we are talking about African countries, as per your initial post, not African cities.
We're not comparing the WSJ website with a less sophisticated but nonetheless clean website of a small town U.S. paper. We're comparing ANY reputable newspaper website with geocities.
What is the "geocities" website in question and how is it relevant your dismissal of the content of an Africultures issue based on your aesthetic opinions alone?
Except that you also harped about your original unsourced claims for two weeks and responded to my reasonable requests for better numbers with overt hostility.
I actaully gave you the name of Echenberg's book. You refused to consult it. I gave you more specific numbers when I got my hands on the book in question. If I was hostile at all, it was because you had made outrageous claims with no factual support and, when directed towards sources that would improve your understanding of history, you simply refused to read them. Putting an attitude like that in writing would earn you an "F" on whatever term paper you might be writing.
You give me no reason to believe that your bizarre posting habits and wanton disregard to the facts are the product of anything other than your unresolved Freudian sexual urges. However, absent any concrete facts in favor of such a conclusion, it is not a charge I can issue.
Please refrain from referring to the United States as a "craphole". If you hate America, you are on the wrong website.
The cities are where the population is. And their refuse, as the world's biggest toilet aka the Niger River indicates, spills across entire countries.
What is the "geocities" website in question and how is it relevant your dismissal of the content of an Africultures issue based on your aesthetic opinions alone
Not merely aesthetics. It's web source skepticism. What differentiates the website you gave from any other amateur webblog, geocities, or myspace posting?
I actaully gave you the name of Echenberg's book.
But nothing specific from it until I hounded you about it for 2 weeks, the entirity of which you vigorously resisted. Anybody can throw out a book title or author. If you can't show specifically what they say and represent it accurately you shouldn't expect others to take your word on it.
You refused to consult it.
You are the one who made the claim about the numbers. It was therefore your burden to show. Then, as now, you exhibited overt hostility toward meeting that burden.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.