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."
I'm here.
Pretty interesting discussion.
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.
I guess I'm an idiot then. And still I'm interested. Go figure.
Of course, when I cited the English language's most respected dictionary, you refused to accept that definition because it's entry (1993) wasn't current enough. On the subject in question (current racist slurs), urbandictionary.com is an invaluable source, if used carefully. I'll remind you that you have yet to produce a single dictionary that defines the term in question as a religious slur rather than a racial one. I have provided two.
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.
And much the same, if you made vague reference to a book that you claimed was the keystone for all "moderate" Islamic thought and failed to provide any evidence for that claim but instead brusquely informed your reader that it was his duty to find and analyze it, you would fail.
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.
The existence of Muslim Nazi troops is documented almost as well as the existence of Christian Nazi troops.
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.
I asked you how many divisions the Mufti had. You gave me a number of troops, none of whom were under his control. Which means you gave me a dishonest answer. The honest answer is that the Mufti had zero divisions.
PS -- This website (http://www.africultures.com/anglais/Edito%20anglais/Edito25.htm) gives an estimate of 200,000 WW2 troops from West Africa alone. Since their WW1 numbers roughly match with numbers used by professional historians (163,000) I have reason to trust the WW2 numbers. With a very conservative estimation of 1/3rd of the soldiers professing the Muslim faith, we have 67,000, although the number is likely much higher.
Well, if you're an interested idiot, you must be an interesting idiot. ;) Welcome aboard.
I maintain that the general public is not ignorant. Only someone truly unlettered in history could possibly (and honestly) give my comments the reading you gave.
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.
So primogeniture was not the basis for legitimate rule that you claimed it was in #150.
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.
What I find odd is that you've justified F y I's conquest of Granada on the following:
"Expelling invaders" (some of whom had 750+ year roots)
"Pelagius's legitimate claim" (Based on his position in the deposed Visigothic royal house)
"Primogeniture" (Which you later recanted)
"Roman rule" (Which was shorter than Moorish rule)
Will the list go on?
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.
That's not really my argument, but if it were to be, how would it be any different than your claim that F y I were justified in "reclaiming" "their" Granada from Moorish "invaders" who had lived there for centuries?
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)
Except that the historical period in question was established in #122: "In fact Khaldu[n] was writing as Christian Spaniards were engaged in a bloody Reconquista that they felt was a completely Just War by Augustinian standards." That puts us in the late 14th century, meaning that the Moorish enemies of the Reconquista at that time had been in Iberia for more than 6 centuries. I thought the time frame would make the geographical setting clear. Apparently I overestimated your intelligence.
tell that to the iraqis.
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.
it's funny that you think that it's "pretty safe to say" whose side the Chilean judicial system was on when the issue at hand is the Constitutionality of the CoD's actions and Pinochet's coup had legitimacy or mere "support".
What a sophist you are!
Nothing of the sort. The question is about the legitimacy of Pinochet's coup and lqclamar prefers to comment on Allende's lack of support in the judicial branch or the comments of politicians who supported the coup ex post facto. For someone who recognizes the distinction between a democracy and a republic, lqclamar should understand that "support" and "legitimacy" are two different things.
Huh? I just reviewed my response and I indicated my only complaint with it was your mistaken portrayal of religions, nationalities, and geographies described in the definition as "races." Given those mistakes in your usage, your original assertion that the term is racial in nature remains unsubstantiated and unsourced.
On the subject in question (current racist slurs), urbandictionary.com is an invaluable source, if used carefully. I'll remind you that you have yet to produce a single dictionary that defines the term in question as a religious slur rather than a racial one. I have provided two.
No. You provided one source that was dismissed because it does not rise to the level of a valid scholarly citation, and a second source that did not show what you claimed. Again since you're the one making the affirmative assertion, sourcing it is incumbent upon you.
Please review your response again. And review my response to it. "Asiatic" is, of course, used as a racial term, much like "Asian" is used as a racial terms today.
No. You provided one source that was dismissed because it does not rise to the level of a valid scholarly citation, and a second source that did not show what you claimed. Again since you're the one making the affirmative assertion, sourcing it is incumbent upon you.
Urbandictionary.com constitutes a "primary source" for the contemporary use of the English language and is a particularly rich source for slang and racial slurs. A true scholar of language would not casually dismiss such a rich vein of examples of use.
You had claimed in your post #143 on that thread (and let's take the debate back to that thread, if you choose to continue it) that "The unifying point of the definition is its reference to the cloth headgarb connoted in the term itself. As that headgarb has, in recent decades, become increasingly associated with the mahometan religion, the term has taken on the characteristic of an anti-mahometan remark regardless of the mahometan's race."
However, despite being the one making an affirmative assertion, you have yet to cite any source -- primary or secondary, erudite or vulgar -- to support your claim.
Except that my reference has been anything but vague. I provided you the title and author, and summarized the pertinent tenets. If you wish to challenge those tenets its your burden to familiarize yourself with that book and post a response. You have chosen out of stubbornness not to do so, which makes any further discussion of it with you difficult.
The existence of Muslim Nazi troops is documented almost as well as the existence of Christian Nazi troops.
Back to tu quoque I see. Too bad for your cause that the Nazi leadership tended to be pagan occultists, and its Christian support was almost entirely confined to a few denominations. Unlike the muslims, who Hitler generally embraced wherever he had the opportunity because of their mutual Jew hatred, entire Christian denominations such as Catholics, and several evangelicals were directly persecuted by the Reich.
I asked you how many divisions the Mufti had.
And I have responded that your question is intentionally loaded to produce a deceptive answer. Knowing that Husseini himself was not a general and thus did not personally command any divisions, you intended to corner me into answering in the negative at which point you could dishonestly dismiss the significant mahometan support for the Reich. You only attack my answer now because I did not take your bait, responding instead with an accurate historical representation of the mahometan Waffen-SS division that Husseini and Himmler raised.
PS -- This website (http://www.africultures.com/anglais/Edito%20anglais/Edito25.htm) gives an estimate of 200,000 WW2 troops from West Africa alone.
That site appears to be a letter to the editor of a small West African newspaper. It does not rise to the level of a reliable source, so barring something more specific I remain skeptical. And while you're searching I'll also point out that west african does not necessarily = muslim. The region as a whole large mahometan and Christian populations, as well as dozens of lesser voodoo and animist religions. Any number you produce should accordingly account for these distinctions within the troop population as well, rather than attempting to pass off all african FFL troops as muslims.
Your gratuitous attempts at insult aside, the fact remains that what you wrote was intended to mislead. Your subsequent angst over me pointing that out seems to derive entirely from the fact that you did not succeed in misleading, but rather found yourself immediately challenged for your simplistic and intentional misportrayal of the Reconquista.
So primogeniture was not the basis for legitimate rule that you claimed it was in #150.
More unsophisticated word games. I suspect you understand the concept and again are being intentionally obtuse, but in the chance that you do not the law of primogeniture of kings extends succession to the oldest surviving male heir. When there is no surviving male heir, the very same law transfers succession to the next closest line. It is by no means exclusive to Spain, as the same rules generally apply to most of the other European monarchies.
What I find odd is that you've justified F y I's conquest of Granada on the following:
The only thing odd is your persistence in misrepresentation despite having been visibly embarrassed on it from the moment you began. In the tradition of the word games you've displayed to date, you persist in confusing the Reconquista as a whole with its final battle in the last and smallest of the Moorish holdings. As I have not characterized Granada independently of the Reconquista as a whole, I find it illustrative of your tendency to lie that you would suggest otherwise and thus see no need to further respond to your dishonesty.
"In fact Khaldu[n] was writing as Christian Spaniards were engaged in a bloody Reconquista that they felt was a completely Just War by Augustinian standards." That puts us in the late 14th century, meaning that the Moorish enemies of the Reconquista at that time had been in Iberia for more than 6 centuries.
No. It only places the writing of Khaldun, a historian of many centuries, in the 14th century. The term Reconquista itself applies to the entire period from 718 and 1492, and more specifically the wars within that period. As the majority of those wars and the majority of the recapture happened within the first half of the Reconquista, to use the term while insisting it to apply only to the final battle in the last Moorish city-state exhibits dishonesty. But that is entirely unsurprising, as dishonesty is your track record around here.
Which is what I did as well.
Back to tu quoque I see.
Nothing of the sort. I was merely stating a fact. And whether Hitler himself was a neo-Pagan or not doesn't change the fact that the men on the front lines mostly belonged to Christian and Heretic churches.
Knowing that Husseini himself was not a general and thus did not personally command any divisions, you intended to corner me into answering in the negative at which point you could dishonestly dismiss the significant mahometan support for the Reich.
I asked a straightforward question. You gave a dishonest answer. Don't pretend that you know my intentions in asking the question better than I do.
That site appears to be a letter to the editor of a small West African newspaper. It does not rise to the level of a reliable source, so barring something more specific I remain skeptical.
An interpretation that reveals your intellectual laziness. Africultures is actually a respected international magazine of African culture and history. You can remain as skeptical as you want, but you've demonstrated time and time again that your skepticism is not necessarily rooted in fact.
And while you're searching I'll also point out that west african does not necessarily = muslim. The region as a whole large mahometan and Christian populations, as well as dozens of lesser voodoo and animist religions. Any number you produce should accordingly account for these distinctions within the troop population as well, rather than attempting to pass off all african FFL troops as muslims.
Perhaps if you had read my post...
No. It states that Khaldun's scholarship was carried out contemporaneously with a Christian Reconquista in Iberia, which is what any normal reader of the sentence would infer. I see you've loosed yourself from the tethers of the English language. I cannot reasonably debate with such a relativist who bends not just the facts but the language itself to fit his needs. Good day.
Maybe Ethiopia should just take a stroll south and do some invasion.
Actually they are very different. "Asian" in its racial use today refers to a hereditary designation, entailing persons from the east and southeastern regions of the asian continent - sometimes called "Oriental" as well. In other uses it can refer to persons from the continent of Asia, much as "American" can refer to both somebody from the American continents or in its use of Native American, somebody from an American Indian racial grouping.
The antiquated term "Asiatic" could conceivably have similar uses, though its base definition simply means somebody from Asia. It can be determined from the OED definition you gave that this was the usage employed, as East Asians are not particularly known for wearing turbans though central and southwest Asians are.
Urbandictionary.com constitutes a "primary source" for the contemporary use of the English language and is a particularly rich source for slang and racial slurs.
Not any more than Wikipedia or any other user-created "reference" tool. But go ahead - try it on some term papers and see how many F's you get.
Except that the Reconquista lasted from 718 to 1492 - a characteristic that is inherently implicit in the term. When you use the term Reconquista without any qualifiers to designate a specific event within the Reconquista, it must be assumed that you are referring to the Reconquista in its whole. If you meant only Granada then you should have said Granada. Once again you've been undone by your imprecise usage of terminology.
I cannot reasonably debate with such a relativist who bends not just the facts but the language itself to fit his needs. Good day.
If that is the case one is left to wonder how you approach the mirror every morning. Then again, it is a common characteristic of liars to engage in projection. They tend to go hand in hand. I've already established numerous instances of you lying, so your indulgence with its psychological fellow travellers was to be expected.
No, you asked a loaded question. And you expected to get away with it. But you didn't, and instead it blew up in your face. So now you're getting all pissy about it. It's funny how one thing leads to another like that.
Africultures is actually a respected international magazine of African culture and history.
And yet the best you can produce from it is a letter to the editor?
Read it again, Sherlock.
Which would mean something if we could reasonably expect ibn Khaldun to have lived 774 years. Or, by your logic, your writing is not contemporaneous with the Space Age, since you likely were not writing at the time of Sputnik.
've already established numerous instances of you lying, so your indulgence with its psychological fellow travellers was to be expected.
Only when you change the meaning of "lying", Clinton.
As does the base definition of "Asian".
It can be determined from the OED definition you gave that this was the usage employed, as East Asians are not particularly known for wearing turbans though central and southwest Asians are.
So I am right. Thank you for acknowledging that.
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.