Posted on 12/14/2006 3:15:09 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
Harare, Zimbabwe (AHN) - Zimbabwe will not turn over former Former Former Ethiopian dictator Mengistu Haile Miriam, despite his conviction of genocide.
William Nhara, a spokesperson for President Robert Mugabe's government, says, "As a comrade of our struggle, Comrade Mengistu and his government played a key and commendable role during our struggle for independence and no one can dispute that."
"The judgment is an Ethiopian judgment and will not affect his status in Zimbabwe. As far as we know there is no extradition treaty between Harare and Addis Ababa."
Mengistu, who has been living in exile in Zimbabwe since he fell from power in 1991, was convicted of charges ranging from genocide, to imprisonment, homicide, and illegal confiscation of property.
Ethiopia's Federal High Court convicted Mengistu and 71 other defendants for their parts in the "Red Terror." According to the U.S. government, "The enormity of government-sponsored operations against suspected political opponents during the 'Red Terror' has defied accurate analysis and has made attempts at quantification of casualties irrelevant."
"Sources estimated that, during 1977-78, about 30,000 people had perished as a result of the Red Terror and harsh conditions in prisons, kebele jails, and concentration camps."
So what's your point? Pinochet himself voluntarily ceded his own power.
All done in violation of the constitution.
That presumes the constitution was operational at the time. Thanks to Allende, it wasn't.
It sounds like you're claiming that the situation justified the coup.
I'm saying that it justified Allende's arrest. The fact that he decided to off himself in the middle of it was beyond Pinochet's control.
Such a claim is in direct violation of article 4 of the constitution
Actually that would've been Allende in violation. The constitution did not bar anyone from arresting criminals.
Show me where I said it did, liar.
Back to the word games, I see. Quite strange for somebody who only days ago was insisting that "Asiatic" was a racial term roughly equal to oriental. Now when it's conventient to your argument it becomes expansively geographical, including the distinctly non-oriental Middle East.
Either way though, you've proven my point that you don't know what you're talking about. If "Asiatic" includes arabs, then the term is geographical - meaning your original claim about it being "racial" is bunk. If "Asiatic" means an East Asian or Oriental hereditary characteristic, then arabs are missing from the definition - meaning your original claim about it applying to arabs is bunk. The choice is yours
The only fair comparisons would be to present either both as raw numbers or both as a percentage. When compared in the latter sense, a couple thousand muslim africans on the war's periphery is a virtually negligible part of the 100-something million or so participants in the allied side of the war effort. IOW, those 20,000 jihadi SS troops constitute a greater percentage of Hitler's forces than the colonial muslims did of the Allied forces.
Your constant apologism for jihadi terrorists, but since your reputation for that is already well known I suppose it's of little use to simply point it out again.
Already shown. See #257.
Yet it was in his power to to refuse office and yield to another successor. Frei described the military's action as meeting its "legal obligation," consistent with the directions of the legislative and judicial branches. Seeing as his expertise on Chilean constitutional law far exceeded anything you could ever hope to glean from your frantic search engine-style "research" into a historical event with which you are painfully unfamiliar, I'll gladly yield to his judgement in that matter.
Seeing as the Nazi jihadis in the 13th Waffen-SS fought side by side with the German divisions defending Vienna, it is difficult to argue that any such preference came to be during action in 1945. Your claim is thus necessarily speculative, and likely intended to minimize or otherwise brush aside the significance of a large mahometan division fighting for the nazis in the heart of central Europe.
...except that the vandals did not have a legitimate claim to Iberia and were only there for a few years. Only Rome did. So legally it was still Rome's to offer. The Vandal invasions of Spain began around 404 and was completely put down by 418 when the Visigoths pushed them across the mediterranean. There was also a Roman insurrection in 409 in Spain, put down successfully in 411. So at most there was a little more than a decade in which Spain was contested before the Visigothic cession, with Rome holding the legal claim to the territory throughout.
In fact, Roman rule never officially ended in Spain save for the transition of power to the Visigoths. The hereditary claim was transferred through Honorius' half-sister, who wed the Visigothic king Athaulf in 414.
to give in an attempt to stay the Visigothic attacks on Rome's Italian territories.
Wrong. The Visigothic attacks on Italian Rome were in 410 under Alaric the Great. Alaric died in 410 and the Visigothic crown passed through three successors within less than 5 years. Valia became king in 415, and openly supported Honorius' rule in Rome. By 418 the Visigoths were in Gaul, and the two empires were openly allied with each other.
And I'll answer again: Too long.
Sounds like an argumentum ad Hitlerum by zimdog.
Of course his analogy is flawed as usual. It attempts to elevate islam's status by presuming that the mahometan heresy is anything more than just that - a heretical perversion of two previously existing religions obtained by falsifying their doctrines and forcing them upon unwilling converts.
This is a classic example of attempting to an impose artificial construct on the debate by intentionally limiting it to an unrepresentative question that is designed to allow only a single desired answer, also unrepresentative.
Zimdog does this all the time, particularly when he would otherwise have to confront an uncomfortable truth. But the fact is, no matter how many times he demands you answer a question about Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, that question remains completely irrelevant to this discussion
...says the guy who has been blabbing for a week about the alleged "tens of thousands" of mahometan French soldiers in WWII, yet cannot be bothered to provide anything remotely resembling specificity much less a source.
Hey - he's telling the truth for once! Though he may not realize it. Nevertheless, what he describes above is what passes for "interfaith dialogue" in his part of the world.
Given the flippancy with which he dismisses Mufti Husseini and all the mahometan SS troops, I suspect he's done more than his fair share of the spatting he talks of. So of course he's heard it.
It's pretty damned bad when you're forced to spend your time in exile living in a sewer like Zimbabwe. I'd probably be tempted to go back to Ethiopia, face the music, and get it over with.
McVeigh's dead and all of his dozen or so trailer park followers are either jailed up or dispersed into oblivion. McVeigh has no sizable public following in this country, and nobody taking to the streets to cheer him on. There's no need to keep him off the streets because he isn't on the streets to begin with, nor are any of his followers.
Not so for the Al Qaeda financiers and jihadis in training in Dearborn, MI, and in Richardson, TX, and in Falls Church, VA and in dozens of other places that have been raided for terrorist activities post 9/11. They're still around, they're still waging jihad, and they still want to kill Americans or forcefully convert us to their child molesting death cult. And as you've amply demonstrated here, they have many more sympathizers who are willing to give them aid and comfort.
A glimpse at your posting history here reveals that you post virtually nothing overtly supportive of this forum's conservative purposes or beliefs. Rather, you linger on the backchannel threads making snide, venom-laced comments to other freepers who do actually support this forum's conservative purposes and beliefs.
The single dominant and unifying characteristic of your comments is the context in which they are posted, which is almost always either a defense of mahometan theology or a tu quoque smear against western civilization made in response to a criticism of mahometan theology.
That is why I referred to you as a disruptive troll. It is also why I remain suspicious of your motives here, and why others such as EPWR are similarly suspicious. Posting on a conservative forum does not make you a conservative. You have to show that through content, and the content of your posting history is generally lacking in genuine conservatism.
You focused on Gabon's miniscule Muslim population in #255, willfully eluding the much larger Muslim populations in other French Equatorial Africa colonies.
1. What's your source?
Myron Echenberg, Colonial Conscripts: The Tirailleurs Sénégalais in French West Africa, 1857-1960 (Portsmouth and London, 1991), p. 53.
Echenberg's sources for the numbers are the annual recruitment reports of the 2G, 4D, and 5D series in the Senegalese National Archives, Fondes Modernes.
2. What are the precise numbers? 22.01% means very little without the number it is a percentage of.
This issue was addressed in #274, which you clearly did not read.
3. 1920-1947 is a long time, most of it OUTSIDE of the WWII period. The troops in question were 1939-1945 only, so provide those numbers.
From the numbers published in Echenberg's book, recruits from the French Sudan (approx 22% of West African military recruits, as demonstrated above) numbered 3163, 6950, 7558, 8550, 11000, 6429, and 5109 for the respective years in question.
My point was that he was opposed to Pinochet's rule.
That presumes the constitution was operational at the time. Thanks to Allende, it wasn't.
If the constitution wasn't operational at the time, then the charge that Allende was in violation of it is not a valid charge.
I'm saying that it justified Allende's arrest.
The issue in question in the coup, not the arrest. Are you claiming that the situation justified the coup? Because that would be a direct violation of article 4.
Actually that would've been Allende in violation.
Apparently you cannot imagine a situation in which two different people could each violate constitutional provisions.
The constitution did not bar anyone from arresting criminals.
Again, Allende's arrest is not the issue in question.
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.