Posted on 02/15/2007 1:40:58 PM PST by Serb29
CERSKA, Bosnia (Reuters) -- The 18-year-old gunman who shot five people to death in a Salt Lake City, Utah, shopping mall was a survivor of the siege that ended in the Srebrenica massacre of 8,000 Muslims in Bosnia's 1992-95 war, a cousin said on Wednesday. Sulejman Talovic, who was killed by police after Monday's shooting spree in which he also wounded four people, fled his village with his family during the Bosnia war to Srebrenica, a U.N.-protected enclave, Redzo Talovic said." "They spent two years in the town, during which Bosnian Serb forces besieged the enclave and Talovic's grandfather was killed by shellfire, Redzo Talovic said. When the Bosnian Serbs overran the town in 1995, taking away and massacring some 8,000 Muslim men and boys, Talovic and his mother were evacuated by the United Nations and later reunited with his father, Redzo Talovic said. "They were a good, quiet family, and I remember that he was a nice kid when he was 4 or 5, maybe a little bit playful," he said, standing in front of the burned-out shell of the Talovic family home in the village of Talovici, eastern Bosnia.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
what might be most disgusting is that someone who claims to be a conservative is swallowing nazi propaganda
Kind of what I meant by seeing no proof...
The ICTY has zero validity as a legal body, it's not even doing too well as a 'Victor's Forum For Vendication Of Otherwise Indefensible Acts'.
well, since even massacre-deniers are posting articles staing 2,500 killed as "proof" that there was no massacre, i'll expect that the icty's ruling just reinforces common sense.
KNOCK IT OFF
If you review his history you will find that he is vexatious about this. He often pings the Admin Moderators to posts 3, 4, or 5 times a day, almost all of them frivolous. I have gone so far as to even limit the number of times I respond to him directly since he is very prone to doing this. I can understand the no personal attacks rule and intend to abide by it, but when he starts equating virtually ANY criticism of his political views and debating tactics with a "personal attack" it becomes downright frivolous.
A picture is worth a thousand words...and the photos of muslims saluting Nazis is a documented fact.
Muslims and their genocides against Christians of Europe/Middle east/North Africa have been going on for about 1300 years.
Those are the facts. Your torrid defense of Nazi Muslims and historical fact is troubling to say the least.
Aside from your mischaracterization of my own posting history and the fact that your claims of how often I "hit the abuse button" is completely baseless, I don't believe you are following the no personal attacks in good faith, nor do I believe that you intend to abide by it.
Your history on this thread alone exhibits a tendency to refrain from direct personal attacks while you offer snide insults to whichever FReeepers who have been corresponding with me.
The fact is, you have a very hard time untangling legitmate arguments from mean-spirited attacks. That shows a lack of respect not just for me, but for FR as a forum. I have made a considerable effort to ask you -- directly and politely -- to stop your personal attacks, for the good of the forum and, ultimately, for the good of your own reputation as a rational thinker.
All you will have to do is show where I ever defended Nazis, Muslim or otherwise. Of course, you cannot.
And I'll remind you, when it comes to defending Nazis, that you denounced both individual Muslim Allied soldiers as "phonies" and the existence of Muslim Allied soldiers in general as a "fantasy". It appears that you are taking up the cudgel against the heroes of WW2. Muslim heroes who fought the Nazis and won -- something you find distasteful for one reason or another. Whether its because you hate Muslims, love Nazis, or some combination of the two, I cannot say. I can say that your attempt to assassinate my character is expected, but your assault on the very men who fought to keep you free is reprehensible.
Good day.
"Altogether, over 122,000 people were mobilized in French West Africa before the armistice, including 9,622 Europeans (mostly officers). The Tirailleurs Se´ne´galais made up the lion’s share of the colonial troops (275,354 men, total), followed by the Indo-Chinese units (88,898 men)."
Notice the 275K number he gives is much larger than the 122K number that immediate precedes it. Here's why: the 275K figure is the number of colonials they recruited before France surrendered in 1940, but only 122,000 of them actually made it into the service (of which almost 10% were European officers).
The article also clearly points out that the Tirailleurs Se´ne´galais came from all over Africa - not just West Africa as Zimdog claimed. There's more though. Scheck continues with the numbers who actually fought in Europe:
"In the campaign of May–June 1940, approximately sixty-six thousand Tirailleurs Se´ne´galais experienced combat in France"
Sheck also indicates how these troops were raised. They weren't volunteers, but rather forced conscripts.
So let's do a little math from what we know. The 66,000 Tirailleurs Se´ne´galais plus the mixed colonial Re´giments d’Infanterie Coloniale Mixtes Se´ne´galais together provided about 80,000 troops from all over Africa who actually fought in Europe. 10% of them were French officers, putting us at 72,000 actual African troops total.
The casualty rate of the French colonial units in Europe was 45% (remember - the french got slaughtered by the German attack). Madagascar's casualties in Europe were 10,500, which puts their total numbers around 23,000 assuming their casualty rate matched the rest. 72,000-23,000 leaves 49,000 from all other French colonial holdings in Africa. That includes the majority-muslim West Africa and the majority non-muslim Central Africa.
Let's be generous and assume that West Africa provided more than Central Africa (and that is being very generous - the West African colonies sided with Vichy) and suppose 60% of the troops came from there, 2/3rds of them Muslim.
That leaves us with an estimate of about 19,000 French Muslim colonial CONSCRIPTS fighting in Europe.
You have made false allegations against another FReeper which is yet another form of personal attack.
You were warned previously on this thread. There will be no more warnings. Discuss, make your points and stop making personal attacks.
In particular, he seems to object to the fact that I criticized him for drawing a moral equivalency between (1) the muslim Utah mall gunman and the Columbine shooters here, (2) between muslim terrorists and Timothy McVeigh on multiple previous occasions, and (3) between an all-muslim Waffen-SS division that fought for Hitler in WWII and Christians. The record of his posts shows conclusively that he has indeed made all three of these comparisons making my allegation anything but false, yet for simply noting that fact I am accused of engaging in a "personal attack." Your advice and suggestions would be once again appreciated in this matter.
Please review the previous posts and you will find that what he claims as "false allegations" are nothing of the sort. He has hit the abuse button against me for criticizing the frequent moral equivalencies that he draws between various muslim jihadis and Christians. These moral equivalencies may be found throughout his posts.
The overall number of Tirailleurs Se ́ ne ́ galais deployed in France between Septem- ber 3, 1939, and June 25, 1940, was 100,000, but around one-third of them were still in training or in transit when the armistice took effect; see “Troupes Coloniales en 1939 – 1940: La mobilisation et la pe ́ riode d’attente,” L’Ancre d’Or Bazeilles, no. 256 (1990), 27 – 38. For a list of soldiers mobilized in France’s colonies in 1939 – 40, see Fargettas, “Le massacre des soldats,” 2:26. Altogether, over 122,000 people were mo- bilized in French West Africa before the armistice, including 9,622 Europeans (mostly officers). The Tirailleurs Se ́ ne ́ galais made up the lion’s share of the colonial troops (275,354 men, total), followed by the Indo-Chinese units (88,898 men).
The article also clearly points out that the Tirailleurs Se´ne´galais came from all over Africa - not just West Africa as Zimdog claimed.
You will have to cite the where that is stated.
Notice the 275K number he gives is much larger than the 122K number that immediate precedes it. Here's why: the 275K figure is the number of colonials they recruited before France surrendered in 1940, but only 122,000 of them actually made it into the service (of which almost 10% were European officers).
If you'll read the article more carefully, you'll see that the 275K number refers to the entire war. The 122K number refers to the troops mobilized before France fell to the Nazis in the summer of 1940.
Sheck also indicates how these troops were raised. They weren't volunteers, but rather forced conscripts.
Many of them were volunteers and many of the conscripts re-enlisted voluntarily. You'll remember that we also had a draft here in the United States. Certainly you don't mean to cast aspersions on drafted GIs, do you?
So let's do a little math from what we know. The 66,000 Tirailleurs Se´ne´galais plus the mixed colonial Re´giments d’Infanterie Coloniale Mixtes Se´ne´galais together provided about 80,000 troops from all over Africa who actually fought in Europe. 10% of them were French officers, putting us at 72,000 actual African troops total.
The casualty rate of the French colonial units in Europe was 45% (remember - the french got slaughtered by the German attack). Madagascar's casualties in Europe were 10,500, which puts their total numbers around 23,000 assuming their casualty rate matched the rest. 72,000-23,000 leaves 49,000 from all other French colonial holdings in Africa. That includes the majority-muslim West Africa and the majority non-muslim Central Africa.
Scheck is very clear. 66,000 Tirailleurs Sénégalais means 66,000 troops from West Africa.
Let's be generous and assume that West Africa provided more than Central Africa (and that is being very generous - the West African colonies sided with Vichy) and suppose 60% of the troops came from there, 2/3rds of them Muslim.
In that Scheck is very clear that these troops came from West Africa (see fn #16 again), it's quite fair to say that of the 66,000 TS troops who were on the front lines defending France from the Nazi horde, 2/3rds of them were Muslim. That gives approx. 44,000 Muslim troops fighting in the heart of Europe years before the Handschar was a terrible glimmer in Himmeler's eye.
That you ignore the other 150,000 troops that fought with the FFL shows your respect for those brave soldiers.
"Muslim heroes who fought the Nazis and won"
WOW!--what a bizarre lie! Five hundred years of Muslim oppression of the Christian population and another decade of brutality at the hands of Muslim Nazi sympathizers and now a resurgent islamic aggression against the balkan peoples and we have sordid statements like this to contend with?
Where does your hate-filled attitude against Balkan Christians originate?
your assault on the very men who fought to keep you free is reprehensible
The men who defend me are not the Osama Bin laden allies and the jihadis you so admire...they are Serbian patriots and allies of the US in WWII who fought for freedom...on the side of freedom not on the side of national socialism and Islam - a combo you find fascinating.
Please refrain from falsely accusing me of mischaracterization for criticizing the absurd moral equivalencies with Christianity you attempt to argue whenever a muslim radical commits an act of violence or terrorism. You have drawn such equivalencies throughout this thread and on dozens of others. I consider this form of argument to be illogically constructed by reason of its false analogy and highly offensive toward Christians. In fact, I believe it is a fair characterization to say that you pull out names like McVeigh and the Columbine shooters, and that you falsely attempt to link Christianity to Hitler for no other reason than to inflame and offend Christian freepers here.
That being the case, I find the professed sincerity of both your note and your vexatious pings to various moderators to be highly suspect and intended not to correct a genuine grievance you feel but rather to silence other Freepers who have criticized your positions and tactics, including the aforementioned moral equivalency arguments. Far from being polite, you have reputedly impugned my honesty, maligned me with false accusations of bigotry, maligned multiple other posters with false insinuations that they support genocide, and generally behaved in a manner that is both quarrelsome and intentionally inflamatory.
I am accordingly asking you to cease from mischaracterizing valid criticisms of your argument as "personal attacks," to cease the false and defamatory insinuations of bigotry against myself and other posters found throughout your posts, and to cease your frivolous and vexatious attempts to involve forum administrators in your bizarre personal battles with other freepers.
You have made false allegations against another FReeper which is yet another form of personal attack.
I have done no such thing. Nor will I ever.
In fact, I believe it is a fair characterization to say that you pull out names like McVeigh and the Columbine shooters, and that you falsely attempt to link Christianity to Hitler for no other reason than to inflame and offend Christian freepers here.
I pull out names like McVeigh, the Columbine shooters and Nazis because they are terrible people who need to be recognized as such.
and that you falsely attempt to link Christianity to Hitler for no other reason than to inflame and offend Christian freepers here.
I make no such attempt. As I've pointed out on many occasions, it is only through your logic that Christianity is linked to Hitler. You have linked Islam to Hitler based on the enlistment of 21,000 Muslim troops in the Nazi army. By that same logic, the millions of Christian troops in the Nazi army would link Christianity to Hitler. I have spent over a month trying to convince you that this logic is faulty.
What I get in return are baseless accusations of "moral equivalency", attacks on my honesty, and disparaging comparisons to "Baghdad Bob."
As for the charges I've leveled against you, I've given you every opportunity to renounce your "tribal guilt" logic, revise your fuzzy math, and refrain from making snide, behind-the-back personal attacks. I have done my best to do so in a polite manner, out of respect for the forum and the manners I was taught as a child. You have refused to do so and I am unswayed by your sudden conciliatory (and direct) manner, given that the Moderators have issued a final warning.
I present historical facts, sir. And I skewer faulty logic. I have no truck with any individual, merely with the wrongheaded, bigoted, or downright dangerous ideas they may spew. I will continue to attack wrongheaded ideas with all my vigor as a true Christian, an American, and a conservative.
I believe the facts are squarely against you. Even lqclamar is now willing to admit thousands of Muslims fighting for the Allies.
I don't have a hate-filled attitude against Balkan Christians, although I have no tolerance for those who goad old ethnic tensions into the violent 21st century.
I'll refer you to your own post #103, where you refer to Mr. Ousmane Kassé (a decorated veteran of the French army and a Muslim) as a "phoney."
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.