Zimbabwe Has No Plans To Turn Over Convicted Ethiopian Dictator (Mugabe protects Mengistu)

allheadlinenews.com ^ | December 13, 2006

[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."

[zimdog]

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.

Funny, I didn't see it that way. You attempted to dismiss the service of tens of thousands of Muslim troops on the grounds that I hadn't named them, whereas you had provided the name of (what was at the time of this exchange) a single Muslim cleric who collaborated with the Nazis. It's generally not a good ideal to disregard tens of thousands of soldiers unless you have a larger force. So I asked you, how many divisions did the Mufti have? The answer is zero, although that is not the answer you gave.

[lqclamar]

My apologies. It's an editorial page response letter from one of their writers to other letters to the editor. As if that somehow makes it anything more credible than an opinion page musing...

[lqclamar]

Funny, I didn't see it that way.

Oh, I think you did. Otherwise you would not attempt to nuance any discussion of nazi muslims by insisting that we only examine their contribution to Hitler if they were personally led into battle by the Reich-mufti who recruited them.

But while we're on the subject, would you mind telling me which mahometan cleric recruited and led the unnamed "tens of thousands" of FFL muzzies you keep babbling about?

[zimdog]

My apologies. It's an editorial page response letter from one of their writers to other letters to the editor.

Again, Sherlock.

And read the scholarly citation, if you can.

[zimdog]

Oh, I think you did.

There's a reason you think that way.

Otherwise you would not attempt to nuance any discussion of nazi muslims by insisting that we only examine their contribution to Hitler if they were personally led into battle by the Reich-mufti who recruited them.

No. I just said that tens of thousands of troops should not be dismissed in favor of a single cleric with no troops.

But while we're on the subject, would you mind telling me which mahometan cleric recruited and led the unnamed "tens of thousands" of FFL muzzies you keep babbling about?

Seydou Nourou Tall led the recruitment effort. As I have made clear, there is no requirement that clerics unless someone claims that a single clerics has military value while tens of thousands of troops do not.

[lqclamar]

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.

That's some mighty strange logic you follow.

The fact remains that you made a general reference to the entire Spanish Reconquista of 718-1492 in the context of a muslim historian. Yet the moment I responded to false statements in your Reconquista reference, you began insisting that you were only referring by way of that same muslim historian to a single final battle in the last and smallest moorish province almost a century AFTER he died.

I was waiting for the moment when you would try to justify Granada ca. 1492 on the dates of Khaldun, whose name you know in passing but whose own timeline you do not. You met my expectations.

So congratulations. You've just inadvertently affirmed that you don't have even the slightest clue what you've been babbling about.

[zimdog]

That's some mighty strange logic you follow.

It's your logic, since you're the one that dismisses the fact that Khaldun wrote during the Reconquista on the grounds that he didn't write during the entire Reconquista.

The fact remains that you made a general reference to the entire Spanish Reconquista of 718-1492 in the context of a muslim historian.

The fact remains that I wrote (#125) "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."

If you can prove that Khaldun did not write during the Reconquista, which you have stated spanned from 718 to 1492, or that the Christian monarchs who pursued the Reconquista did not believe their war was a Just War, be my guest.

Yet the moment I responded to false statements in your Reconquista reference,

There were none, unless you can prove that Khaldun did not write during the Reconquista, which you have stated spanned from 718 to 1492.

So congratulations. You've just inadvertently affirmed that you don't have even the slightest clue what you've been babbling about.

I was waiting for the moment when you would try to justify Granada ca. 1492 on the dates of Khaldun, whose name you know in passing but whose own timeline you do not. You met my expectations.

the conquest of Granada was the end of the Reconquista. Ergo, it was part of it. Khaldun has nothing to do with it, save for the fact that the Reconquista did not end until well after he did, meaning that he was writing during the Reconquista, which, as you have stated, began in the early 8th century.

So congratulations. You've just inadvertently affirmed that you don't have even the slightest clue what you've been babbling about.

Since you've slipp'd the 'stricting Bonds of Reason, it has become clear that you don't have the slightest clue what I'm saying in plain English

[lqclamar]

No. I just said that tens of thousands of troops should not be dismissed in favor of a single cleric with no troops.

And yet they never were. I did question and continue to question whether their significance to the allies was anything more than on the periphery. And I also point out that muslim supporters of the Reich were significantly closer to its core and to the heart of the fighting in Europe itself.

That "single cleric" you refer to met personally with Hitler and travelled across eastern europe recruiting 20,000 muslims into the SS with Himmler. He also personally intervened in an eastern europe prisoner exchange negotiation that resulted in sending 5,000 Jews to the gas chambers. And he had hundreds of Hitler-supporting clerics under him as well as a Hitler-loyalist muslim politician in Iraq who committed "tens of thousands" of Hitler-supporting muslim troops to attacking the British in the middle east.

So yes. By comparison of influence and significance to the Nazi effort, I'd say Husseini wielded more of a stroke than the entire colonial muslim membership of the FFL combined. Plus his cohorts did it all in the name of Mahomet, as their Crescent scimitar-adorned SS badge indicates:

[lqclamar]

The fact remains that I wrote (#125) "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."

And in a followup, you subsequently stated your Reconquista reference of 20th generation moors was to the fall of Granada in 1492, rather than the entire Reconquista. You then stated that this was implicit since you were referring to ibn Khaldun.

The problem with your neat little train of excuses, of course, is that ibn Khaldun died almost a century before Granada.

And now that you've finally discovered that you are on the retreat from the specific event of Granada 1492, which you were harping endlessly about only moments ago, to emphasize the fact that Khaldun only lived during the Reconquista. Such mistakes and backtracking as you've just done are typical of somebody who feigns knowledge as a cover for internet searches. Perhaps elsewhere you've gotten away with it, zimdog. But your shell game is exposed now. Take a word of friendly advice - accept your losses and move on. Continuing this charade any further only makes you look pitiful.

[lqclamar]

For any lurkers seeking review, let's revisit an old part of the conversation.

zimdog: "The "foreign invadeders" were 20th-generation descendants of the Moors who invaded."

lgclamar: Points out that the Reconquista began within a decade of the Moorish invasion.

zimdog: Harps endlessly about Granada in 1492.

lcqlamar: (post 145) "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."

zimdog: (post 150) "It did happen then. Granada fell to Ferdinand and Isabella's forces in 1492."

lqclamar: (post 154) "In your original post you suggested that the events in Granada in 1492 represented the entirity of the Reconquista"

zimdog: (post 156) "I described the Reconquista in no such terms and only an idiot would read my description in such a way."

lgclamar: (post 159) "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""

zimdog: (post 164) "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."

...at which point I made simple note of the fact that the date event zimdog had been specifically harping on (Granada 1492 - see e.g. post 150 above) was a century after Khaldun, who he now purports to have established the date for his earlier Reconquista reference. Put another way, zimdog had no clue about the dates, events, or persons he was using. He slipped up and began intermixing events almost a century apart. And this slip up was caught, explaining his pissy mood at the present.

[lqclamar]

tell that to the iraqis.

They've already affirmed it themselves in their actions and statements. Both the shias and sunnis in Iraq want worldwide Islamotopia, the only difference being who's on top.

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".

You asked what the judiciary would have to say on the matter, suggesting it is an arbiter of legitimacy. I pointed out that the Chilean Supreme Court - aka its highest ranking judicial body - went against Allende with the rest of the government. In fact they ruled him in breach of the constitution on multiple counts, which would affirm the finding of the CoD that Allende was operating outside of the constitution as well.

In short, the two other branches of the Chilean government determined that Allende's legitimacy was forfeit. If Allende had no legitimacy, then his overthrow cannot be a violation of what was not there. Meanwhile legitimacy was conferred upon his successor Pinochet by the CoD's request to oust Allende, the subsequent endorsement of the coup after Allende's ouster, and the convention Pinochet called to repair and restore the constitutional government that Allende had breached.

[zimdog]

For any lurkers seeking review, let's revisit an old part of the conversation.

Indeed, let's.

zimdog: "The "foreign invadeders" were 20th-generation descendants of the Moors who invaded."

Your #130 recognizes the Khaldun's productive life as the period in question and makes no comment. Therefore, we proceed with the understanding that we are talking about the late 14th century. If the Moors first invaded in the early 8th century (which they did), that leaves more than 600 years before the time in question. When you said that the 14th century Christian forces were fighting Moorish "invaders" you certainly didn't literally mean the 8th century Moors who invaded Iberia, did you? If so, you're not making a rational argument and we can stop right there. If not, you are suggesting that the Moors these 14th century Christian forces were fighting were somehow "invaders" even though their roots in Spain at that time dated back more than 6 centuries. Easily 20 generations.

lgclamar: Points out that the Reconquista began within a decade of the Moorish invasion.

This is an important point. We'll return to it.

zimdog: Harps endlessly about Granada in 1492.

I'll just mention that this seems to be an unnecessary editorializing thrown in by lqclamar.

lcqlamar: (post 145) "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."

Your argument seems to hinge on the false idea that the Reconquista was a single "event." If so, it is an idea that you introduced and I ignored. Furthermore, the 6 centuries/20 generations continues to mark locate the historical period in question in the 14th century.

zimdog: (post 150) "It [the Reconquista] did happen then.[the late 14th century] Granada fell to Ferdinand and Isabella's forces in 1492." [The fall of Granada is widely recognized as the completion of the Christian force's "Reconquest" of Spain. I.e., the end of the Reconquista]

You seem not to know that the fall of Granada was the end of the Reconquista that you (correctly) stated had begun in the early 8th century. Either that or you're can understand how a reference to the Reconquista's end postdating Khaldun by nearly a century could imply that the Reconquista was still going on during his lifetime.

lqclamar: (post 154) "In your original post you suggested that the events in Granada in 1492 represented the entirity of the Reconquista"

Seeing how I never made that suggestion (as recourse to the #150 bears out, if that is what you are considering the "original post"), I maintain my claim that only an idiot would read my post that way.

lgclamar: (post 159) "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""

Did Christian rulers of 14th century Iberia set themselves against Moors who were not in Spain? No. Were Moors not "expelled kingdom by kingdom over the next several centuries" as the Christian armies pushed south? Of course they were. (It's something you claim in #150.)

So if the Moorish "invaders" in question were not outside of Iberia and not in Christian-held lands? Where were they? They were in Moorish Iberia, the south of the peninsula. When did the Moors first take power in Iberia? In the early 8th century. Where did they first take power? In the south of the Peninsula. Had Christian forces conquered the Moorish states of Iberia in the late 14th century? No, there was still a Reconquista, against the Moorish "invaders", as you claim in #130. So these "invaders", that is to say the Iberian Moors that are the target of the Reconquista, are at this time (late 14th century) cultural and biological heirs to the Moors' 600+ year history in Iberia.

...at which point I made simple note of the fact that the date event zimdog had been specifically harping on (Granada 1492 - see e.g. post 150 above) was a century after Khaldun, who he now purports to have established the date for his earlier Reconquista reference.

Whihc of course I did, although I got the citation wrong. It should be post #125. I'll point out that post #150 makes it clear that with the fall of Granada "All of Iberia was "reconquered" by Christians." That is to say, the nearly eight century-long Reconquista was over. That this occurs nearly a century after Khaldun's death reinforces my point that the so-called Moorish "invaders" targeted in the 14th century actually had a 600+ year history in the land.

Put another way, zimdog had no clue about the dates, events, or persons he was using.

Sure sounds like I have a clue, doesn't it audience?

He slipped up and began intermixing events almost a century apart.

To say that the Reconquista ended in 1492 is does not discount the fact that the so-called Moorish "invaders", targets of the Reconquista in the 14th century, were heirs to 600+ years of Moorish rule at the time.

And this slip up was caught, explaining his pissy mood at the present.

I just don't suffer fools easily.

[zimdog]

And in a followup, you subsequently stated your Reconquista reference of 20th generation moors was to the fall of Granada in 1492, rather than the entire Reconquista.

Quote the followup then.

And now that you've finally discovered that you are on the retreat from the specific event of Granada 1492, which you were harping endlessly about only moments ago, to emphasize the fact that Khaldun only lived during the Reconquista.

I don't believe I claimed that Khaldun instigated the Reconquista or ended it. My initial point was that the Reconquista was part of the intellectual world that he lived in when he lived in the 14th century. That your recognize that the end of the Reconquista comes after Khaldun's death shows that you accept the same common facts as true. Way to go, sport.

Such mistakes and backtracking as you've just done are typical of somebody who feigns knowledge as a cover for internet searches. Perhaps elsewhere you've gotten away with it, zimdog. But your shell game is exposed now.

I'll ask you a simple question: were there Moors in Iberia during Khaldun's life? Yes. Is it conceivable that some of them were 20th generation Iberians, given that the Moors first took power to the peninsula in the early 8th century. Yes.

Hopefully that will straighten you out.

Take a word of friendly advice - accept your losses and move on. Continuing this charade any further only makes you look pitiful.

I'll gladly take a word of friendly advice, but you're not my friend and you're in no position to give advice.

[zimdog]

I did question and continue to question whether their significance to the allies was anything more than on the periphery.

Only if you consider North Africa and Italy to be the periphery.

By comparison of influence and significance to the Nazi effort, I'd say Husseini wielded more of a stroke than the entire colonial muslim membership of the FFL combined. Plus his cohorts did it all in the name of Mahomet, as their Crescent scimitar-adorned SS badge indicates:

Interesting thing about that Waffen SS unit, apparently they were the first Nazi troops to mutiny.

So while no one disagrees with you that the Mufti was an evil, evil, man, it seems that his vaunted recruiting efforts produced soldiers that were far less effective than the conservatively-estimated 67,000 Muslim troops in the FFL from West Africa alone.

After all, who won the war?

[zimdog]

You asked what the judiciary would have to say on the matter

Show me where I asked that.

pointed out that the Chilean Supreme Court - aka its highest ranking judicial body - went against Allende with the rest of the government. In fact they ruled him in breach of the constitution on multiple counts, which would affirm the finding of the CoD that Allende was operating outside of the constitution as well.

The issue at hand is Pinochet's legitimacy, not Allende's.

In short, the two other branches of the Chilean government determined that Allende's legitimacy was forfeit. If Allende had no legitimacy, then his overthrow cannot be a violation of what was not there.

You're confusing a question about Allende's lack of legitimacy with a question about the legitimacy of Pinchet's coup.

Meanwhile legitimacy was conferred upon his successor Pinochet by the CoD's request to oust Allende,

Such a request can only "confer legitimacy" if it is part of the CoD's constitutionally defined powers.

the subsequent endorsement of the coup after Allende's ouster,

You're again confusing "support" with "legitimacy".

and the convention Pinochet called to repair and restore the constitutional government that Allende had breached.

Ex post facto actions may justify the coup, but they do not legitimate it.

[zimdog]

Legitimize, not legitimate.

[zimdog]

You have pressured him to renounce the BNP multiple times now.

Show me the "multiple times" I "pressured him" then.

[lqclamar]

The issue at hand is Pinochet's legitimacy, not Allende's.

That's not what you said in Post #132: "Unpalatable as he [Allende] may have been, he was the country's legitimate president."

You're confusing a question about Allende's lack of legitimacy with a question about the legitimacy of Pinchet's coup.

The only confusion here is your own, as this discussion began when you described Allende as Chile's "legitimate president." I've already indicated why he was not with little to no substantive answer from you, only your usual word games.

[zimdog]

That's not what you said in Post #132: "Unpalatable as he [Allende] may have been, he was the country's legitimate president."

You pointed out that his legitimacy was challenged, but you have yet to detail the constitutionally defined (that is to say legitimate) actions taken to strip him of his title.

[lqclamar]

Only if you consider North Africa and Italy to be the periphery.

You've yet to provide specific and substantive documentation of their numbers in Italy. North Africa was by far the largest of the African theaters, but also the smallest of the major theaters of the war.

Interesting thing about that Waffen SS unit, apparently they were the first Nazi troops to mutiny.

But only after the tied had turned against Germany and they were hastily shipped off to France in a ditch effort by Hitler to delay the inevitable. "Tens of thousands" of Nazi soldiers mutinied or deserted in the last two years of the war, as tends to be the case for losing armies in any comparably sized war. Hell, several of Hitler's own generals tried to murder him the same year. But that doesn't mean they were not nazis.

So while no one disagrees with you that the Mufti was an evil, evil, man, it seems that his vaunted recruiting efforts produced soldiers that were far less effective than the conservatively-estimated 67,000 Muslim troops in the FFL from West Africa alone.

Source please. And I'll be expecting a religious breakdown of their ranks when you provide it as well, since West Africa also has large Christian and pagan populations.

In fact the main French colonies in sub-saharan Africa to opposed the Nazis or Vichy regime were predominantly NON-MUSLIM, contrary to your suggestions.

The primary FFL controlled colonies were Gabon, Cameroon, Middle Congo, Ubangu-Chari, and Chad. Out of that entire group, Chad is the ONLY one with a significant muslim population (about 50%). None of the others are more than 15% muslim and some have hardly any muslims at all!

Gabon's muslim population is less than 1% of the entire country. The rest are all Christian or voodoo.

Middle Congo (Republic of Congo today) has a muslim population of 1% too. The rest are all Christian or voodoo.

Cameroon's muslim population is in the 15% range, the rest split equally between Christian and voodoo.

Ubangu-Chari (now Central African Republic) is only 15% muslim, the rest being Christian or voodoo.