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."
Not enough Slavs left, pehaps.
The inescapable fact that you wish to avoid, of course, is that some 21,000 mahometans joined the SS and fought with Hitler in defense of the heart of his empire till the bitter end.
It's clear enough that 21,000 Muslims served in the SS. Whether they defended the Reich "till the bitter end" hinges on the very subjective understanding of the bitter end. But yes, it is true that 21,000 Muslims served Hitler in the Waffen-SS.
Pinochet was named the commander of the Chilean Army. He was not a minister in the government and had no position in the constitutional line of presidential succession.
...except that Frei had been endorsing the military's intervention against Allende since at least two months BEFORE Pinochet was even named commander in chief.
Perhaps you don't understand that calling for Allende's arrest (as you have so often mentioned) is very different than calling for an unconstitutional coup. The conditions were very different after the coup. Any pretense of a de jure constitutional life was erased by the coup and Pinochet's rule by decree could not be challenged as Allende's had been.
Much to the contrary. The junta was nothing more than a temporary governing structure established to fill the absence of functioning constitutional government caused by Allende.
Much to the contrary, the junta abolished the constitution upon seizing power. Frei's role in 1976 had no effect on his statements in October 1973.
You have yet to produce evidence of that. In fact all existing evidence is to the contrary. Frei is on record calling for the military to depose Allende several months before the coup.
This is very different than calling for a junta to unconstitutionally seize control of the country. Either Frei was calling for Allende's arrest based on the CoD's allegations of presidential crimes or he was calling for a military coup. If the latter, Frei was also an enemy of the constitution.
Pinochet's nomination cannot transform Frei's comments ex post facto. If you have any evidence of Frei commenting on Pinochet's alleged desire to protect the Chilean constituion, please show it now. Otherwise, you were caught claiming something that is not supported by the evidence of history and you should drop the subject.
Not after I found the book.
Next you can tell me in what capacity, and where, did they serve?
Half as combat troops. Half as military laborers and combat reserves.
We are looking at relative mahometan soldier support for each side, are we not?
No. We are looking at troop numbers. If you want to consider relative support, you should provide concrete figures and not vagaries like "100-something million or so participants in the allied side of the war effort" or, more outrageously, "hundreds of millions," which could mean anywhere from 200 million to just under one billion troops.
I raised the possibility that the French concentrated their recruitment efforts in Muslims communities.
I had previously pointed out that the strongest colonial french support by far came out of the non-Vichy sub-saharan colonies: chad, gabon, cameroon, middle congo, and ubangu-chari.
You suggested that, but without evidence.
Furthermore, all colonies were "non-Vichy" after 1942.
Given those statistics, even concentrated intentional muslim recruitment in four out of five of those colonies would still produce a small minority of the troops raised there...
That makes no sense. If the French recruited mostly Muslims, then the majority of the troops would be Muslim.
which is a far cry from the vague and unspecific numbers originally suggested by you, when you attemtped to claim nearly all French african colonial forces for islam.
I said that Muslims constituted a plurality among religious groups in the FFL's African army.
False. Chad, which had that largest proportion of Muslims, was the very first colony to support de Gaulle. Also, Chad and Cameroon were the most populous colonies and also had the highest concentration of Muslims in French Equatorial Africa.
2. The bulk of the FFL came from the De Gaulle controlled colonies of Cameroon, Gabon, Chad, Middle Congo, and Ubangu-Chari.
You would have to prove that. If you can make this claim, you must know the number of troops from Equatorial Africa and West Africa.
That's nice and all, yet you've still failed to give country by country numbers. Surely if you know the source, you also know the numbers they are referring to. Do you not?
Echenberg does not give numbers for each colony but did give the colony-by-colony breakdown of West Africa's contributions to the French army, which he claims are representative. He is a respected historian and I trust his judgement. If you don't, you know what files to consult in the Senegalese archives.
It says little about actual numbers and NOTHING about muslim numbers.
It gives the breakdown of troops recruited by colony. Using the CIA Factbook's religious demography that you accept, we can calculate the percentage of Muslims:
Upper Volta 22.01% of recruits x 50% Muslim == 11.005% Muslim recruits
French Sudan 20.49% x 90% == 18.441%
Senegal 16.52% x 94% == 15.5288%
Guinea 15.77% x 80% == 12.616
Côte d'Ivoire 14.30% x 35% == 5.005
Dahomey 8.4% x 20% == 1.68%
Niger 1.84% x 80% == 1.472%
Mauritania 0.67% x 100% == 0.67%
Giving a figure of 66.4178% Muslim recruits.
Second, please describe what these units did, what their jobs were (were they a legion of soldiers of a legion of cooks?), where they were assigned, and what battles they fought in.
Approx. 65,000 West African troops defended France against the German invasion. West African troops also fought Nazis in North Africa during Germany's 1939-1940 offensive. They served in the FFL contingent in the Italian campaign of 1944 and were gradually replaced with European troops (de Gaulle's choice to prevent the capital from being liberated by soldiers from the African colonies, thus protecting France's "national prestige") as the FFL moved towards Paris and absorbed Resistance fighters.
You've demonstrated that you know how to use Google, but you haven't demonstrated any evidence for your libel about me supporting terrorists.
You think it's necessary to intern "first generation muslims"? Again, how does locking up Kareem Abdul-Jabbar protect us from Mohammed Atta?
See post #352.
No. You constructed a ridiculous strawman of his initial idea, presented it to him in an hyperbole-laden version, and demanded that he defend the details of the caricature you created even though they were not his to defend. The blame on that is entirely your own.
EPWR has clearly stated that he wants to imprison -- without charges and for an indeterminate time -- a group of American citizens throughout the entire country based on their ethnic and/or religious background alone.
Yeah, and he has clear constitutional precedence to do so in Korematsu v. U.S.
The concentration camps that would result his dream of a moslemrein America might come to resemble FDR's internment camps or they might resemble Hitler's execution camps.
Baseless accusations. EPWR has stated clearly that his proposal would be modeled on FDR's internment of the Japanese and Germans. You have absolutely no evidence or genuine reason to draw comparison with Hitler.
deemed Constitutional at the time but immoral for all time, that "the only good Indian is a dead Indian".
And specifically what ruling was that exact phrase used in?
Unfortunately those two terms are mutually incompatable in most cases.
Your definition of "jihadi" is loose enough to sometimes refer only to terrorists and sometimes refer to Muslims in general
Since most muslims in general have a theological disposition to support or practice jihad, so-called moderates included, the broader term is applicable. And yes, you do defend jihadis.
The big difference, however, is that it hasn't been. That it would be is also very far from certain. In fact, given the two cases' proximity, several of the same justices who decided Korematsu also decided Brown v. Board, overturning Plessy. Four of the six-member majority on Korematsu were still on the court in 1952. Brown was uninamous.
Actually a Roman Foederatus was recognized as a subordinate state, entreatied by alliance to Rome.
...except that Rome entered into treaty to cede its administration of Iberia to them.
Furthermore, Honorius's grant to Galla Placida could not pass through hereditary succession because neither she nor her husband left any heirs.
Ah, but the Visigothic line did produce an heir after Athaulf's (Adolphus in some translations) assassination - Wallia. Wallia entered into the treaty with Honorius.
Since you have proven eager to hide unpleasant facts in vagaries, you will have to prove the legitimacy of Pelayo's claim.
Your gratuitous insults aside for the moment, Pelagius (or Pelayo in some versions) obtained his legitimacy by visigothic law. He was member of Roderic's court and nobleman of the Asturius province in northern Spain. Pelagius was also one of the only Visigothic noblemen to survive. Visigothic law stated that in an interregnum with no direct heir of the previous monarch, the successor would be selected by a vote on candidates chosen from the remaining nobility, which Pelagius did circa 718 when he began the reconquista.
Nah. Just a mutual contempt for the Jew among nazi and aryan SS thugs.
It's clear enough that 21,000 Muslims served in the SS. Whether they defended the Reich "till the bitter end" hinges on the very subjective understanding of the bitter end.
Not really. They lingered on until surrendering on May 8, 1945 - a week after even Hitler himself had expired.
Except that the Commander in Chief could qualify as head of the military department.
Perhaps you don't understand that calling for Allende's arrest (as you have so often mentioned) is very different than calling for an unconstitutional coup.
Not if Allende resists arrest and orders his thugs to fire back.
The conditions were very different after the coup.
Yeah. There was no Allende.
Nor do they. You, however, seem to expect that Frei should have the ability to predict the future and thus anticipate which military commander would lead the ouster of Allende. The real point which you seek to obscure, of course, is not the military commander's name but rather the fact that Frei called on the military to oust Allende. Pinochet happened to be the commander of that military when it complied, and Frei, consistent and true to his previous word, supported him when it happened.
And to think...it only took you two weeks of looking and dozens upon dozens of evasive posts whining about how you couldn't be expected to provide numbers supporting your claims.
Half as combat troops. Half as military laborers and combat reserves.
More specific please. I find it doubtful that they split up neatly at exactly 50%.
No. We are looking at troop numbers.
I beg to differ. In your previous post you made it a point to emphasize that Hitler's mahometan SS troops were a tiny fraction of his entire army. You thus contextualized them as a percentage of his total troop strength. The proper comparison with the allies would accordingly use their percentages as well.
Of course the real story here is that you now realize you made a mistake in taking Hitler's muslims as a percentage, because you know they made up a larger chunk of his armies than they did of the allies. Thus you evade the subject.
You did so to suggest, without evidence, that the French concentrated recruitment efforts among muslims.
You suggested that, but without evidence.
Actually, the colonies that De Gualle controlled are a matter of historical record. Only one of them had a substantial muslim population.
Furthermore, all colonies were "non-Vichy" after 1942.
...which makes them three years late compared to the non-muslim De Gaulle colonies.
That makes no sense. If the French recruited mostly Muslims, then the majority of the troops would be Muslim.
Except that you've provided no evidence of that ever occuring.
I said that Muslims constituted a plurality among religious groups in the FFL's African army.
Given the sparsity of numbers until now and the evasiveness of your tongue, that is far from clear.Early on you were suggesting that muslims and the FFL were virtually synonymous.
It is also a dubious assertion at best, considering that the mahometan colonies were all latecomers to De Gaulle's forces. Of course you could easily put the matter to rest by being forthright on your statistics. Put another way:
(Muslim FFL/Total FFL)*100=% Muslim
From there we can figure out their percentage in the total allied effort.
Strawman argument. Lew Alcindor's parents were from Harlem, not Marrakesh or some other third world muzzie craphole.
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.