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."
No, because cause and intention of conduct are joint prerequisites. Cause alone is insufficient.
Public execution is publicly supported by several Heretic churches, with a lineage going back to Luther himself. However, our Constitution and judicial precedent consider death by stoning, etc. cruel and unusual punishment and thus illegal.
They are when you're an Ayatollah in Iran.
Well, there's a legitimate government!
. My point was that many mahometan leaders base their policies on beliefs in radical theological doctrines surrounding the expansion and unification of the Dar al-Islam. The goal is comparable, though the means and sects diverge. A new Caliphate is bin Laden's means of reaching this goal. A mahdi figure is Ahaminejad's.
We've already discussed bin Laden and Ahmadinejad. So name some more.
If so, then your prior misuse of the term heresy must have been intentional.
Where did I misuse the term?
Actually far from it. Christian persecution of Jews was never a unified or monolithic thing. There are explicit references to judeo-christian or hebriac-christian culture from the time of the American founding and discussions pertaining to the 1st amendment. Explicit articulations of the concept appeared in the century or so before the founding. Explicit tntegrations of thought from Judaism into the Christian philosophical tradition date to at least Maimonides, and in its earliest forms a millenium prior to Jewish Roman writers such as Flavius Josephus.
The term itself is of very recent pedigree, first published just a few decades before the decline of "Mahomet".
No. Only those that respond to a transgression or shortcoming of mahometanism by ignoring the substance of that transgression and shouting about how the west did something terrible too. Since that seems to be your favorite mode of argument, I fear the need to identify your tu quoque statements has yet to be exhausted.
Should you believe that these Mahometans live set apart from the rest of the world, then by all means, continue to do so. I will be happy to provide historical context even if it means suffering your Latinate barbs.
I'm perfectly aware of where Chile is. I simply cited it as an example of a horrible regime that was justly ousted by somebody who the left calls a "despot."
Not Just by Augustinian standards. Pinochet and his cohort had no legitimate sovereignty. They fail the first test.
It's not how somebody else "reads" Taymiyya or Ghazali that is the problem. It is what Taymiyya and Ghazali themselves said.
Or rather, what they have said that has been quoted by extremists. To give another example, even the most moderate medieval Papal Bull dealing with Jews would be extreme by today's standards. The solution is not to try to explain the Bulls away as the works of moderates, but not refrain from citing them as theological precedent. You cannot blame Ghazali's for Qutb's selections from his works. Qutb is the one who gives them present meaning.
Ghazali was deemed "mainstream" by mahometan theologians long before I was ever around to select him.
This is not a valid argument for why you, or anyone, might consider him to be "mainstream" today.
And that could mean anything from 20,000 to 99,999. That's a broad range, and suggests that somebody is playing fast and loose with the numbers to disguise a less flattering yet more specific number.
In fact, some quick research online reveals that the main sub-saharan FFL unit contained about 15,000 troops, not all of which were muslim. Perhaps there were others elsewhere, but barring more specific numbers I'll remain in doubt of your intentions. And how many divisions did the Mufti have?
I already told you. He had at least one that he directly raised - A Waffen-SS unit fighting in the middle of Europe and composed of over 20,000 muslims from the Balkans. Their uniform badge consisted of a crescent-shaped islamic sword and a swastika on black.
I suppose you could also count troops that were loyal to Husseini, in which case there were a bunch of Iraqis under the government of the pro-Nazi PM of Iraq, Rashid Ali al-Kaylani. When the Brits retook Iraq in 1941 they captured or killed about 10,000 of al-Kaylani's troops, which means he had many more than that in his army...so let's say "tens of thousands."
No, they came up the Italian peninsula and crossed into France.
Numbers please.
Inasmuch as they had their sites on the whole world, yes.
No. It was a little more direct than that. Or did you forget about Rommel's Romp through North Africa, Mussolini's Abyssinian and Somali campaigns, and even a joint Vichy-Japanese stand on Madagascar in 1942.
The 20,000 Muslim troops he helped recruit still pale in comparison to the tens of thousands of Muslim troops in the FFL.
You're gonna have to do better than "tens of thousands" in substantiating your numbers if you wish to make that comparison. I'd also contend that a handful of colonial troops fighting on the war's periphery in Africa is far less significant to the war than a Waffen-SS division fighting smack in the middle of Europe.
Seven and two thirds, but who's counting?
The surviving sovereign was Pelagius of Asturias. He was the Visagothic Duke of Asturias in northern Spain at the time of the Moorish invasion.
So he had no claim on Granada.
20 generations in 11 years between the Moorish conquest and Covadonga? Those moors must've done a lot of breeding!
I don't take you for an idiot. I expect the same. If that is the only response you can give, so be it.
Not really. At least portions of all three of those regions were virtually uninhabited at the time that the first modern inhabitants arrived.
As were "portions" of Iberia before the Moorish conquest. Perhaps those should be returned?
In the case of Israel the current inhabitants are descendents of prior inhabitants who resided there in antiquity. Much of the so-called Palestinian population, which is largely Jordanian and Egyptian in origin, did not even arrive there until the 19th and 20th centuries.
Which was nonetheless earlier than many of the Jewish settlers. And the Palestinian population also claims descent from prior inhabitants; Canaanites, Phonecians, Jews, etc.
It might have something to do with the fact that it's 4 AM. Try readingDes tranchées de Verdun à l'église Saint-Bernard: 80000 combattants maliens au secours de la France, 1914-18 et 1939-45 by Bakari Kamian. Happy hunting!
. He had at least one that he directly raised - A Waffen-SS unit fighting in the middle of Europe and composed of over 20,000 muslims from the Balkans.
I find it hard to believe that this Arab from Jerusalem was sufficiently comfortable in Serbo-Croatian to personally convince 20,000+ Bosnian Muslims to take up arms.
I suppose you could also count troops that were loyal to Husseini,
So he was at the top of the chain of command? Interesting.
there were a bunch of Iraqis under the government of the pro-Nazi PM of Iraq, Rashid Ali al-Kaylani. When the Brits retook Iraq in 1941 they captured or killed about 10,000 of al-Kaylani's troops, which means he had many more than that in his army...so let's say "tens of thousands."
Of course, 1941 was well before Husseini's European tour, so lets say there were 21,065 Bosnians he helped recruit and some 10,000 dead and an unspecified number of remaining troops once commanded by the deposed anti-Semitic Iraqi PM on the fringes of the War.
No. It was a little more direct than that. Or did you forget about Rommel's Romp through North Africa, Mussolini's Abyssinian and Somali campaigns, and even a joint Vichy-Japanese stand on Madagascar in 1942.
Show me where Rommel's North African campaign crossed the desert. Show me where Ethiopia and Somalia were near any French colony save Djibouti (then called the Territory of the Afars and the Issas). Show me where Madagascar's burgeoning Muslim population lived in the Island in 1942. You can't.
I'd also contend that a handful of colonial troops fighting on the war's periphery in Africa is far less significant to the war than a Waffen-SS division fighting smack in the middle of Europe.
Well, who won the war? Those are usually the more "significant" forces.
I suppose Luther was a heritic, strictly speaking. But the question remains - did he ever apply and carry out levitical law in Germany or anywhere else or in any way comparable to how shari'a law based on literalist koran readings is carried out all over the mahometan world today?
However, our Constitution and judicial precedent consider death by stoning, etc. cruel and unusual punishment and thus illegal.
Which is precisely the point of difference with Iran, which doesn't. The biggest difference in our types of governments, of course, is theirs is Islamic.
We've already discussed bin Laden and Ahmadinejad. So name some more.
Happily. There's the Hamas regime in Palestine, which shares a sunni variation of the caliphate dream. There's the Nasrallah thugs in the lawless regions of Lebanon, which adheres to a Shi'a version. Muqtada Sadr's Mahdi Militia is running around in Iraq right now. Then there are dozens of nominally "secular" muslim dictators who fund jihadi groups dedicated to various versions of a Caliphate, the Mahdi Mailbox, and other various islamist causes - Assad in Syria, most of the Saud princes. And of course virtually every single islamic country on the planet has at least one political party that espouses jihadi goals.
The term itself is of very recent pedigree, first published just a few decades before the decline of "Mahomet".
The preferred 18th and 19th century counterpart to the Judeo was "Hebraic." The reference is to the same cultural influence though.
Should you believe that these Mahometans live set apart from the rest of the world, then by all means, continue to do so
Well, they certainly have done everything in their power to exclude modernity from their lives in favor of the 7th century existence they've maintained since...well...the 7th century.
Not Just by Augustinian standards. Pinochet and his cohort had no legitimate sovereignty. They fail the first test.
Incorrect. Two weeks before the coup the Chilean Chamber of Deputies adopted an ultimatum to Allende demanding he cease and desist his land seizures, and if he did not, directing the military to remove him by force. Allende ignored the ultimatum. So Pinochet took him out. The legitimacy of Pinochet's regime was promptly endorsed by the conservative party, by two former Presidents of Chile, and by the center-left majority in the Chilean Congress, the CDP. The CDP+conservatives made up a majority of the congress BTW. By the time the dust settled Pinochet had the support of virtually everybody in the Chilean government except for the Communists, who had only won 36% of the vote in the election that produced Allende.
Or rather, what they have said that has been quoted by extremists.
But that's the point. The extremists don't need to quote Taymiyya. They only need to hand out copies of his entire books, which are equally extreme as anything Qutb or Mawduddi or bin Laden put out.
To give another example, even the most moderate medieval Papal Bull dealing with Jews would be extreme by today's standards. The solution is not to try to explain the Bulls away as the works of moderates, but not refrain from citing them as theological precedent.
Big difference though. Papal Bulls on the Jews from medieval times were but a tiny fraction of medieval theological doctrines from many of the the same authors, including other topics that are of far greater importance today. Ghazali's Tahafut could be considered the islamist equivalent of some anti-semitic papal declaration in extremity, but whereas those declarations are generally ignored today Ghazali's Tahafut remains both his most significant work and one of the all time classics of mahometan thought.
You cannot blame Ghazali's for Qutb's selections from his works. Qutb is the one who gives them present meaning.
Once more, Qutb preferred Taymiyya. Ghazali is considered too "moderate" for him. But what you keep missing/intentionally ignoring is that Said Qutb did not need to select or excerpt or interpret or spin Taymiyya to produce something radical. It was already there IN TAYMIYYA'S WORK when read in full and in its own original context. Qutb is basically Taymiyya repeated.
"There is no other explanation for this than the one cited earlier from Moses, namely, that God has struck them with "madness and blindness and confusion of mind." So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them. Rather we allow them to live freely in our midst despite an their murdering, cursing, blaspheming, lying, and defaming; we protect and shield their synagogues, houses, life, and property In this way we make them lazy and secure and encourage them to fleece us boldly of our money and goods, as well as to mock and deride us, with a view to finally overcoming us, killing us all for such a great sin, and robbing us of all our property (as they daily pray and hope). Now tell me whether they do not have every reason to be the enemies of us accursed Goyim, to curse us and to strive for our final, complete, and eternal ruin!"
Which is precisely the point of difference with Iran, which doesn't. The biggest difference in our types of governments, of course, is theirs is Islamic.
Or ours is secular. Take your pick.
Happily. There's the Hamas regime in Palestine, which shares a sunni variation of the caliphate dream. There's the Nasrallah thugs in the lawless regions of Lebanon, which adheres to a Shi'a version. Muqtada Sadr's Mahdi Militia is running around in Iraq right now. Then there are dozens of nominally "secular" muslim dictators who fund jihadi groups dedicated to various versions of a Caliphate, the Mahdi Mailbox, and other various islamist causes - Assad in Syria, most of the Saud princes. And of course virtually every single islamic country on the planet has at least one political party that espouses jihadi goals.
And, ignoring some important omissions and mischaracterizations for the moment, what's your point with all this?
The preferred 18th and 19th century counterpart to the Judeo was "Hebraic".
Maybe 18th century. Not 19th.
Incorrect. Two weeks before the coup the Chilean Chamber of Deputies adopted an ultimatum to Allende demanding he cease and desist his land seizures, and if he did not, directing the military to remove him by force. Allende ignored the ultimatum. So Pinochet took him out. The legitimacy of Pinochet's regime was promptly endorsed by the conservative party, by two former Presidents of Chile, and by the center-left majority in the Chilean Congress, the CDP. The CDP+conservatives made up a majority of the congress BTW. By the time the dust settled Pinochet had the support of virtually everybody in the Chilean government except for the Communists, who had only won 36% of the vote in the election that produced Allende.
The question is not one of support, it is one of legitimacy. The entire situation sounds very extraconstitutional.
But that's the point. The extremists don't need to quote Taymiyya. They only need to hand out copies of his entire books, which are equally extreme as anything Qutb or Mawduddi or bin Laden put out.
Once more, Qutb preferred Taymiyya. Ghazali is considered too "moderate" for him. But what you keep missing/intentionally ignoring is that Said Qutb did not need to select or excerpt or interpret or spin Taymiyya to produce something radical. It was already there IN TAYMIYYA'S WORK when read in full and in its own original context. Qutb is basically Taymiyya repeated.
So your point is that modern radical fundamentalists essentially parrot medieval bigots, who you understand to be medival "moderates" because they are parroted by modern radical fundamentalists who claim to speak for "true Islam". Do I have that right?
I think you were when you dishonestly suggested that the Reconquista was an event that happened 20 generations and 6 centuries after the Moorish conquest.
In reality, the Reconquista began when Pelagius returned around 718 only 6 years after the conquest. Most of the Reconquista took place between the first major battle 11 years after the invasion and the boxing of the Moors up in Andalusia around 1000. A second wave of Moorish invaders arrived in 1086 out of Africa and attacked the north. The next 2 centuries were spent pushing them back. By about 1260 the Reconquista was all but over, and the southern Moorish kingdoms became vassals to the Spaniards and Portuguese and fell over time.
So he had no claim on Granada.
Wrong. Roderic, the Visigoth King of all of Spain, was killed in 711 and Agila, a contender to his throne, died in exile in 714. This left Pelagius as the highest ranking nobleman, and thus legitimate heir to Spain.
I don't take you for an idiot. I expect the same. If that is the only response you can give, so be it.
Nor do I take you for an idiot. I do question your honesty in this discussion though, and your original suggestion that the Reconquista was some Spanish invention of the 1400's to get revenge on the 20x great-grandsons of the people who conquered them in 711, I find this questioning substantiated.
The historical reality of the Reconquista is far different. If anything, it was an act of rebellion by the people who were invaded only a few years later. That rebellion continued with their sons, grandsons, and great grandsons. Then a new wave of Moors flooded in during the 11th century, and the Spaniards rebelled again. As did their sons, grandsons, and great grandsons until the Moorish rulers were holed up in the tiny kingdom of Granada - the only Moorish state that even remotely resembles your false description of the entire Reconquista.
As were "portions" of Iberia before the Moorish conquest.
Not in any comparable sense. Texas (an area of land the size of Spain) had fewer inhabitants in 1820 than Spain did in 700. As with most of your analogies, the comparison simply isn't supported by history.
Which was nonetheless earlier than many of the Jewish settlers
And later than many others, though certainly later than ALL of those Jewish settlers' ancestors.
And the Palestinian population also claims descent from prior inhabitants
That they do, but in many cases they might as well be claiming descent from the Aztecs and it wouldn't be any more valid. Many of the tribes they claim decent either disappeared or actually originated from neighboring territories, particularly Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. Phoenician anthropology, for example, situates its distant modern descendants in coastal Lebanon and Syria - not Israel. The other most commonly claimed tribes - the Canaanites and Philistines - disappeared completely in pre-Roman times. Others who claim to be Canaanites are actually Lebanese Phoenecians who use the older tribe's term out of a belief that the Pheonecians descended from a northern Canaanite tribe. And of course there are "palestinians" who came out of Egypt and Jordan, but claim to be descendents of various extinct pre-roman tribes as a way of establishing a false legitimacy in their land claims.
That's nice and all, but you aren't asserting the text of an entire book - you're asserting a specific number. Find a source with an actual number or move on.
I find it hard to believe that this Arab from Jerusalem was sufficiently comfortable in Serbo-Croatian to personally convince 20,000+ Bosnian Muslims to take up arms.
Nobody ever suggested that he personally knocked on their doors and got them to join. Himmler flew with him to Sarajevo in 1943 though, and he spent the next several weeks soliciting local muslim clerics for Nazi troops. The effort produced the all-Muslim 13th Waffen-SS.
So he was at the top of the chain of command? Interesting.
No. If you were honest and read what I wrote, you would know that the chain of command was headed by one of his followers - the Nazi-supporting Prime Minister of Iraq, al-Kalyani.
Of course, 1941 was well before Husseini's European tour, so lets say there were 21,065 Bosnians he helped recruit and some 10,000 dead and an unspecified number of remaining troops once commanded by the deposed anti-Semitic Iraqi PM on the fringes of the War.
Quite a few muslim nazis!
Show me where Rommel's North African campaign crossed the desert.
He didn't...south of him, anyway. But his thugs were all over French North Africa.
Show me where Ethiopia and Somalia were near any French colony save Djibouti (then called the Territory of the Afars and the Issas).
Which proves my point. French Somalia was definately French.
And of course I almost forgot to mention that nazi loyalists from the Vichy regime controlled much of France's west african holdings until 1942-3. In fact, the Brits, with De Gaulle, tried unsuccessfully to take Senegal from Vichy in late 1940 and succeeded a few months later in Gabon.
Show me where Madagascar's burgeoning Muslim population lived in the Island in 1942. You can't.
I don't recall ever calling Madagascar mahometan. I referenced it though to show that WWII's periphery extended well south of the Sahara - a point you were denying and/or hiding earlier this evening.
It did happen then. Granada fell to Ferdinand and Isabella's forces in 1492. Jews were expelled. Moors were expelled. All of Iberia was "reconquered" by Christians. This was 781 years after the Moors first took southern Spain. Easily 20 generations.
Wrong. Roderic, the Visigoth King of all of Spain, was killed in 711 and Agila, a contender to his throne, died in exile in 714. This left Pelagius as the highest ranking nobleman, and thus legitimate heir to Spain. p> Legitimate by whose standards? The Goths invaded Iberia in the 5th century, which means they controlled Andalusia for less than half the time the Moors ruled it.
Nor do I take you for an idiot. I do question your honesty in this discussion though, and your original suggestion that the Reconquista was some Spanish invention of the 1400's to get revenge on the 20x great-grandsons of the people who conquered them in 711, I find this questioning substantiated.
You claimed that the Reconquista was just because "its cause was the expulsion of a foreign invader" (#130). The expulsion of the Moors came some seven centuries after the last "foreign invader" started pushing up daisies. Even with a second wave of Moorish invaders in the late 11th century you still have a 400 year history to contend with. And if 400 years does not give the Moors any claim to legitimacy, it certainly doesn't give any to the descendants of descendants of a short-ruling kings of the Visigoths and their three-century-old state.
And of course there are "palestinians" who came out of Egypt and Jordan, but claim to be descendents of various extinct pre-roman tribes as a way of establishing a false legitimacy in their land claims.
The point you're missing is that claimed residency hundreds of generations before is a very weak claim, regardless of who makes it.
Not in any comparable sense.
There is no "comparable sense." Either the land was inhabited at the time of the conquest or it wasn't. You seem to be claiming that conquerors have a right to uninhabited land.
And later than many others, though certainly later than ALL of those Jewish settlers' ancestors.
Excepting the ancestors that had married into Jewish families. And of course, the Jews themselves are not indigenous to the region, so if one could conclusive prove a Canaanite connection, the whole house of cards would tumble.
And yet still no evidence that he ever actually carried it out, as happens in Islamic countries on a daily basis.
And, ignoring some important omissions and mischaracterizations for the moment, what's your point with all this?
If I recall correctly you complained previously that Bin Laden and Ahmadenijad were not enough and asked specifically for more names and examples of various jihadis. The fact that you now seek to obscure that request by questioning why I responded to it is a testament to the dishonesty entailed in your participation here.
The question is not one of support, it is one of legitimacy. The entire situation sounds very extraconstitutional.
Actually the constitutional crisis of Chile in 1973 began long before Pinochet did anything. Allende had already violated or suspended sections of the existing constitution as early as a year before the coup, placing Chile in an extraconstitutional situation by August 1973. Seeking to resolve it, the Chamber of Deputies met then and sent Allende the ultimatum detailing all of the provisions he was obliged to restore. The same ultimatum contained the request for military intervention if Allende refused. That came in the coup 2 weeks later.
By the time Pinochet acted Chile's previous constitution was already destroyed at Allende's hand. He acted with the strongest sanction possible from the functioning remnants of the constitutional government under the circumstances that existed. He also went to work immediately after the coup to establish a constitutional convention that would restore what Allende had destroyed.
So your point is that modern radical fundamentalists essentially parrot medieval bigots, who you understand to be medival "moderates" because they are parroted by modern radical fundamentalists who claim to speak for "true Islam". Do I have that right?
No. Ghazali is considered a medieval "moderate" by modern "moderates," who also parrot him in modern times. Taymiyya is considered a medieval radical by modern moderates, and somebody to parrot by modern radicals. If you read Ghazali though you will find out quickly that his "moderate" vision is actually quite extreme, as is those of the modern "moderates" who parrot him today.
I've given you the citation. It is not my duty to provide you with the book. Nor is it my duty to read it for you.
No. If you were honest and read what I wrote, you would know that the chain of command was headed by one of his followers - the Nazi-supporting Prime Minister of Iraq, al-Kalyani.
I asked you how many divisions the Mufti had. You gave a dishonest answer. After your most recent response, it seems that the correct answer is "zero".
Which proves my point. French Somalia was definately French.
It proves nothing, since the Territory of the Afars and Issas is a tiny fraction of France's vast sub-Saharan Empire and, to my knowledge contributed few if any troops to the FFL.
And of course I almost forgot to mention that nazi loyalists from the Vichy regime controlled much of France's west african holdings until 1942-3.
Those Nazi loyalists had already been in power in the colonial government.
I referenced it though to show that WWII's periphery extended well south of the Sahara - a point you were denying and/or hiding earlier this evening.
You'll find nothing I wrote saying anything to that effect. I said that the Muslim African troops in the FFL largely joined to fight against Fascism and not because, as you claimed in #118, "their homes were under attack."
As is often the case, you don't recall correctly. I asked for more examples of leaders who (and here I quote your #124), "despite their differences in sect and period and origin, are alike in their respective espousals of Koranic literalism and the establishment of the aforementioned Islamic domain."
You've named names, but you have yet to show me how Nasrallah and bin Ladin are alike, especially since bin Ladin seeks the restoration of a Caliphate that was shunned by the Following of `Ali in the 7th century.
Seeking to resolve it, the Chamber of Deputies met then and sent Allende the ultimatum detailing all of the provisions he was obliged to restore. The same ultimatum contained the request for military intervention if Allende refused.
The question here is were the CoD's acts constitutional. A caveat seems to lie in the fact that a "request" for military intervention is very different than a constitutional mandate. If indeed that is the case.
No. Ghazali is considered a medieval "moderate" by modern "moderates," who also parrot him in modern times.
You have yet to produce these "moderates" who parrot Ghazali. Where are Wafa Sultan's approving citations? Where is Saliou Mbacké's glowing tribute? Where is Zuhdi Jasser's unquestioning submission?
Though it is far from surprising, you are being dishonest again. Granada was the smallest and last of the Moorish kingdoms to fall. Most of Spain had been retaken in the 1200s. In your original post you suggested that the events in Granada in 1492 represented the entirity of the Reconquista - something that an unsuspecting observer would have easily missed, hence your deceptive intent proven.
Legitimate by whose standards?
Primogeniture.
The Goths invaded Iberia in the 5th century
Actually the Visigoths (a western tribe of the goths) were granted the Roman province of Aquataine in the Pyrenees by Honorius, the Roman Emporer. Part of the deal also allowed them to settle further south in Iberia in exchange for controlling some of the nomadic tribes that had moved into the region as Rome pulled out.
So if you're going to look for a legitimate predecessor to the Visigoths, it would be the Roman Empire. Since Rome abandoned it though, the land went up for grabs and of the tribes that went grabbing the Visigoths had the strongest sanction from its previous rulers via Honorious.
The expulsion of the Moors came some seven centuries after the last "foreign invader" started pushing up daisies.
You're being dishonest again. The first expulsion of the Moors happened in Asturias only 11 years after they arrived. They were expelled kingdom by kingdom over the next several centuries. Only a tiny fragment of the Moorish invaders' offspring, holed up in the smallest and last of their kingdoms, even remotely resembles your original description for the entire Reconquista.
Much to the contrary. You're simply being dishonest in your presentation of events, as well as your characterizations of my words. Some would call it intentional obfuscation. The sad part is you seem to think that you're being clever, as if nobody's taken notice.
I asked for more examples of leaders who (and here I quote your #124), "despite their differences in sect and period and origin, are alike in their respective espousals of Koranic literalism and the establishment of the aforementioned Islamic domain."
Yes. Now pay close attention to the phrase "differences in sect and period and origin." We'll return to them momentarily.
You've named names, but you have yet to show me how Nasrallah and bin Ladin are alike, especially since bin Ladin seeks the restoration of a Caliphate that was shunned by the Following of `Ali in the 7th century.
Remember that phrase, "differences in sect and period and origin"? Well guess what. It applies to Bin Laden and Nasrallah, who come from different radical sects. And as I indicated previously, they are similar in their desire to establish an Islamic domain, or Dar al-Islam, even if a different sect (their own) is running it. Of course you knew that already, but decided to be intentionally obtuse about it to cover up for your deficiencies in formulating an intelligent argument to back up your own position.
The question here is were the CoD's acts constitutional.
Given what remained of the Chilean Constitution at the time and the harm being done to it by Allende, I'm inclined to say that they were.
A caveat seems to lie in the fact that a "request" for military intervention is very different than a constitutional mandate. If indeed that is the case.
This request would seem to fall under that category of actions encompassed by the Chilean equivalent of an oath to sustain and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. IOW, it was an act of self preservation by the CoD, which was under direct unconstitutional assault by Allende. Since the CoD was a constitutional body by definition, acts of self preservation against a hostile party behaving in direct violation of the constitution (Allende) are necessarily constitutional, as the alternative is to permit the complete dissolution of the constitution.
If the unsuspecting observer is an idiot and doesn't know a single thing about the Reconquista, thus rendering him susceptible to the misreading you ascribe to him, then I would say he has either lost interest in this debate or has no business following it.
The fact is, the Moors expelled from Granada at the tail end of the 15th century had far deeper roots in that land than the Visigothic claimants ever did.
Primogeniture.
It is presumptuous at best to assume that the bloodline of a 7th century king, transmitted by male descendants, continued unbesmirched for seven centuries.
Part of the deal also allowed them to settle further south in Iberia in exchange for controlling some of the nomadic tribes that had moved into the region as Rome pulled out.
You're being dishonest again. Rome "withdrew" from Iberia as its power waned and that of the Vandals and Alans waxed. But if Rome had "pulled out" as you say, what rights did they have to cede to the Visigoths? And what's more, the Romans, who first came to Iberia as conquerors in 219 BC, enjoyed a shorter rule over Andalusia (Granada, at least) than the Moors.
Only a tiny fragment of the Moorish invaders' offspring, holed up in the smallest and last of their kingdoms, even remotely resembles your original description for the entire Reconquista.
I described the Reconquista in no such terms and only an idiot would read my description in such a way. You're being dishonest again.
The fact is, the Moors in Granada had a much stronger claim to the territory than any alleged desscendant of a Visigothic placeholder king.
Yet you've given no particular number that you purport to be citing - only the vague "tens of thousands." I previously remarked that your internet dictionary quote would earn you an F. Much the same, you would be failed for claiming a specific fact - such as a statistic - in your term paper, yet only citing it in the footnote to a generic source with no page number. In any such citation the burden is entirely yours to meet.
I asked you how many divisions the Mufti had. You gave a dishonest answer.
Actually you were attempting to force me into making an answer that, while seemingly fitting your argument of trying to minimize jihadi involvement in the Reich, did not accurately portray the well documented historical involvement of Husseini in Hitler's regime and the equally well documented participation of Husseini-recruited muslim SS troops in Hitler's army. You also probably thought you were being clever by asking it. That is why you respond in hostility upon discovering that I did not take the bait, and why you accuse me of dishonesty instead when my response only pointed out an inconvenient historical reality that you would prefer to overlook.
It proves nothing, since the Territory of the Afars and Issas is a tiny fraction of France's vast sub-Saharan Empire and, to my knowledge contributed few if any troops to the FFL.
But then again you can't say that since you either don't know or refuse to share the actual numbers. See what a corner you've backed yourself into?
Those Nazi loyalists had already been in power in the colonial government.
Wrong as usual. Al-Kaylani had been forced out of office the previous year by the British due to his dealings with the Nazis. He seized control again in a Nazi backed coup in 1941.
Rather, it's you who is being dishonest. But it's 6:15 AM. I'm sure nobody has noticed you, except for me.
Remember that phrase, "differences in sect and period and origin"? Well guess what. It applies to Bin Laden and Nasrallah, who come from different radical sects. And as I indicated previously, they are similar in their desire to establish an Islamic domain, or Dar al-Islam, even if a different sect (their own) is running it.
How then are these two fools "alike in their respective espousals of [...] the establishment of the aforementioned Islamic domain." When one wants to revive an institution that lost all real power a millennium ago and the other awaits the Messianic return on the 12th Imam and Christ to pave the way for the Mahdi and the Last Judgement?
Given what remained of the Chilean Constitution at the time and the harm being done to it by Allende, I'm inclined to say that they were.
Given that such an argument holds water like a fork under judicial scrutiny, I'd counsel you to wait for the Chilean constitutional scholars to wake up.
The ignorance of the general public is not an excuse to lie to them, which is basically what you just admitted to doing.
It is presumptuous at best to assume that the bloodline of a 7th century king, transmitted by male descendants, continued unbesmirched for seven centuries.
The Spanish succession between that point was not a direct descendence of male heirs, but rather a bloodline. When Kings fail to produce a direct male heir succession goes to the next of kin, such as a non-primogeniture sibling, a nephew, or a cousin. This happened a couple times between Pelagius and Isabella and Ferdinand, though the bloodline remained intact through several strains to both of them independently. As was often the custom of the day, royalty married distant cousins.
You're being dishonest again.
That seems to be your codeword for the fact that I introduced a historical event that inconveniences your argument.
Rome "withdrew" from Iberia as its power waned and that of the Vandals and Alans waxed. But if Rome had "pulled out" as you say, what rights did they have to cede to the Visigoths?
As I suspected you would do, you've chosen to argue artificial constructs of convenience rather than historical events. Rome still owned Acquataine when Honorius gave it to the Visigoths. It still owned Hispania as well when it allowed them to settle there, even though Iberia was being invaded by the Vandals at the time. Honorius' plan was to reward the Visigoths, who were considered Romanized compared to the other barbarians, by giving them control of spanish land in exchange for putting down the other more hostile barbarians. Once Rome gave the Visigoths a green light it pulled its own troops back.
And what's more, the Romans, who first came to Iberia as conquerors in 219 BC, enjoyed a shorter rule over Andalusia (Granada, at least) than the Moors.
How odd. You seem to have staken your entire argument for mahometan control of Spain on their ability to get holed up in a single city-state on the southern tip of Iberia.
I described the Reconquista in no such terms and only an idiot would read my description in such a way. You're being dishonest again.
Far from it. Your words, made in reference to the Moors as a whole with absolutely no indicator that it referred to but a single tiny province, read "The "foreign invadeders" were 20th-generation descendants of the Moors who invaded" (post 136)
You made that statement in response to my post, which described the moors as a foreign invader. Prior to that point no reference had been made to Granada or anything other that Iberia in its entirity.
Very simple. What do you think the purpose of the magic mahdi is in the eyes of most jihadi millenialists? Here's a hint - they don't think he'll make the world come to a sudden end. Rather they expect him to establish a global Islamic domain, presumably in the SHi'a model. Bin Laden also wants a global Islamic domain as well and thinks the caliphate is the way to go (although there is also some evidence that he might believe a restored caliphate is a means of bringing about the sunni mahdi figure as well). In short the means are different, but the ends - worldwide islamotopia, be it sunni or shia - are quite similar.
Given that such an argument holds water like a fork under judicial scrutiny, I'd counsel you to wait for the Chilean constitutional scholars to wake up.
It's funny you mention that since the Chilean Supreme Court made several rulings in 1973 pertaining to the Allende-induced constitutional crisis after he started seizing land and ignoring the legislature.
They were all against Allende, and he ignored their verdicts.
His refusal to obey the Chilean Supreme Court was one of the offenses against the constitution outlined by the Chamber of Deputies. Given that evidence, it's pretty safe to say that the Chilean judicial system was not on Allende's side.
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.