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."
The only falsehood is your misrepresentation of my argument. I pointed out that Chad was 50% muslim and acknowledged them as a De Gaulle colony (and the only muslim De Gaulle colony, BTW) before you even posted so much as a single statistic. Cameroon's muslim population was 15.8% in 1995. That's hardly a high "concentration." Only Chad had significant numbers of mahometans among the De Gaulle colonies.
You would have to prove that.
The De Gaulle colonies are documented historical fact. I am simply pointing out that there was only one muslim colony among them. 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.
All of that is nice, except that it draws mainly from colonies that were latecomers to the French war effort. Meanwhile the French Christians of the De Gaulle colonies had already been fighting for 3 years.
And google shows that your favorite topic here is defending mahometans. Since the majority of mahometans are either terrorists or terrorist sympathizers by religious duty, that support and sympathy conveys a transitive property to you, their defender.
Searchterms: zimdog, muslim = 326 hits.
LINK: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=site%3Awww.freerepublic.com+zimdog+muslim&btnG=Search
Searchterms: zimdog, excluding common islam-related terms (muslim, islam, mohammed, jihad, mecca, and durkadurkabakalakala) = 91 hits
LINK: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=site%3Awww.freerepublic.com+zimdog+-muslim+-mohammed+-islam+-jihad+-mecca+-durkadurkabakalakala&btnG=Search
See post #354
He stated quite clearly that he wanted all Muslims interned in concentration camps. This includes Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Zalmay Khalilzad.
Yeah, and he has clear constitutional precedence to do so in Korematsu v. U.S.
It would take a declaration of war, among other things, to meet the conditions set forth in the opinions of Black and Frankfurter in the Korematsu case. Furthermore, such a plan would require the clearly unconstitutional government intrusion into the religion, as Americans would have to register their faiths with the state before the state could round up the adherents of a particular faith. So, no, Korematsu isn't much of a precedent.
EPWR has stated clearly that his proposal would be modeled on FDR's internment of the Japanese and Germans.
Only recently. He was earlier in favor of concentration camps for all Muslims throughout the country.
You have absolutely no evidence or genuine reason to draw comparison with Hitler.
Save for the fact that he wants camps for all practitioners of a particular faith. FDR's exclusion act, faulty as it was, spared Americans of Japanese descent who lived outside the exclusion zones of California, Washington, Oregon and Alaska.
And specifically what ruling was that exact phrase used in?
The specific phrase is too crude for the Supreme Court. However, it was unchallenged de facto government policy throughout much of the 19th century.
You would have to prove this "disposition". Where is Wafa Sultan's love for violent holy war? How many declarations has the Aga Khan issued in favor of al-Qa'ida? When will Saliou Mbacké join the insurgency in Iraq?
And yes, you do defend jihadis.
I only defend the innocent against injustice. Whatever name you choose to call innocent Muslims matters less to me than your hatred towards them.
That's because there hasn't been a policy of concentration camps or mass internments since then, which makes it difficult for a challenge to reach the court.
So Visigothic Spain was subordinated to Rome until it fell. Fine.
The grant was given to Galla Placida, who was returned to Rome after Athaulf's death, leaving behind no heirs.
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.
So he proclaimed himself king of a kingdom that had lost most of his territory. Fine.
Yes, Nazis and Aryan SS thugs were anti-Semites. However, if you want to claim that Muslims and Nazis were natural allies, you will have to account for the tens of thousands of West African Muslims fighting the Nazis, not to mention the Equatorial African Muslims and the North African Muslims fighting against the Nazis.
Not really. They lingered on until surrendering on May 8, 1945 - a week after even Hitler himself had expired.
So after receiving news that the dictator was dead, they sought out British forces and surrendered.
That would be the minister of defense. Pinochet was in charge of the army, not the country's armed forces as a whole.
Yeah. There was no Allende.
There was also no constitution, de facto or de jure thanks to Pinochet. Frei could at least appeal to the constitution in his campaign against Allendism. The Pinochet junta precluded that possibility.
The point is you tried to say (your #231) that Frei believed that Pinochet intended to preserve the constitution before the coup. You have yet to offer any evidence for that. All you have are some vague anti-Allende statements that appeal to an army not yet commanded by Pinochet.
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.
Frei called for Allende's arrest, as you have often stated. There is no record of him supporting an extraconstitutional military junta, nor is there any record of him concluding that Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte intended to uphold the constitution.
Actually, I gave you the 200,000 figure, which you dismissed as coming from Africans, and I gave you the conservative estimate that 1/3rd of the troops were Muslim, which you poo-pooed. Now that I found the book and have given you more specific numbers, you can see that the earlier, rougher figures were also significantly lower than the more detailed evidence suggests.
More specific please. I find it doubtful that they split up neatly at exactly 50%.
Echenberg gives the statistics for the French Sudan. The split is 46-54 active-reserves.
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.
Well, earlier you had challenged the troop numbers and having been proven wrong on that you are now turning to troop percentage. Fine. Find the total troop numbers and compare. The Wermacht had about 18,000,000 soldiers and 21,000 of them were Muslims. The French had over 100,000 Muslim troops from West Africa alone. If their total forces reached 90,000,000 troops (larger than the population of European France itself), then you might have a comparison.
I'm certain he can speak for himself, but I have yet to see him specifically call for the internment of the two persons you name. When I discussed it with him I was left with the impression that he was advocating a policy modelled directly on FDR's program in WWII. Unless he says differently, I'll take that as his intent and consider your comments as hyperbole-laden misportrayals of it.
It would take a declaration of war, among other things, to meet the conditions set forth in the opinions of Black and Frankfurter in the Korematsu case.
And someday we may be forced into that. The point remains though that it's a policy option, and a constitutional one.
Furthermore, such a plan would require the clearly unconstitutional government intrusion into the religion, as Americans would have to register their faiths with the state before the state could round up the adherents of a particular faith.
Not necessarily. Though imperfect, national origin functions remarkably well as a proxy for mahometan in most mahometan countries, and particularly middle eastern ones given the notable absence of substantive religious diversity in those regions. Since the WWII precedent itself was based on national origin (Japan and Germany), a similar system for, say, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, Libya, Algeria, Morrocco, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan etc. could function without any religious disclosure.
Only recently. He was earlier in favor of concentration camps for all Muslims throughout the country.
Once again, given your penchant for intentionally misrepresenting your adversaries, I'll have to take his word on it.
Save for the fact that he wants camps for all practitioners of a particular faith.
Certain "faiths" are prone to commit evil, mahometanism being the foremost among them. Simply labelling it a "faith" is not a valid cover for its danger.
However, it was unchallenged de facto government policy throughout much of the 19th century.
Actually that was the executive branch's policy, often made in defiance of the supreme court, i.e. Worcester v. Georgia.
Wafa Sultan is not regarded as second to mahomet alone among islamic theologians. In fact, Wafa Sultan isn't even regarded as a theologian at all. Abu Hamid al-Ghazali was though, and he loved violent holy war. And "mainstream" jihadi theology holds Abu Hamid al-Ghazali second only to the pseudoprophet mahomet-pig urine be upon him-in significance.
How many declarations has the Aga Khan issued in favor of al-Qa'ida?
Considering that the Aga Khan is a shi'ite, one would not expect to find him praising sunni al qaedans.
When will Saliou Mbacké join the insurgency in Iraq?
Why would he want to do that? Iraq is a continent away, and there are plenty of other wartorn 3rd world craphole countries in his own neighborhood to wage jihad in.
I did so to suggest that you were ascribing a great deal of importance to numbers without any knowledge of the facts on the ground.
Actually, the colonies that De Gualle controlled are a matter of historical record.
But the characterization of their support is either subjective or should be based on numbers like troop strength. What is it?
...which makes them three years late compared to the non-muslim De Gaulle colonies.
Two years and some (summer 1940-November 1942), and that was largely a choice of the fascist Christians in charge of the colonies.
Except that you've provided no evidence of that ever occuring.
Again, it's not a claim I'm making. I'm simply pointing out your willingness to play with numbers. You claim that even if the French concentrated their recruitment efforts among Muslims in colonies where Muslims were a distinct minority, "those colonies would still produce a small minority of the troops raised there." (#350) Of course, that makes no sense, because if the majority of French recruits were Muslims, the majority of the troops would be Muslims, regardless of the makeup of the overall population.
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.
I suggested no such thing.
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
De Gaulle had approx. 100,000 troops in the Italian campaign and his policy of "whitening" the army replaced 20,000 West African soldiers with European French troops. So, given the 66.4% Muslim participation in the West African forces, we can reasonably expect 12,000-13,000 Muslims in the force of 100,000, or 12% of the invasion force.
Take a moment to inform yourself about the manner of Galla Placida's return. I quoted Gibbon on it previously. It was arranged by treaty with Wallia, who in turn was given the rights to settle Iberia.
Actually he was elected from the surviving noblemen as prescribed by Visigoth law in an interregnum without a direct heir.
of a kingdom that had lost most of his territory. Fine.
And then he set about reconquering it, and you are apparently still mad about him doing so.
I thank God for Spain's sake that he did.
You argument in #351 was clear: "The muslim northern French Equatorial colonies were Vichy controlled for the first half of the war and contributed far less to the allied side than non-Vichy colonies."
The northernmost and Muslimmost colony in French Equatoria Africa was Chad, which is also, as you've pointed out before, the only colony in French Equatorial Africa with a Muslim majority. It was also the first colony to support de Gaulle, shortly after France fell to Germany in 1940. It is unlikely that Chad ever gave its allegiance to Vichy, save for bureaucratic assumptions in Europe. It is inconceivable that Chad was controlled by Vichy for the first half of the war.
The De Gaulle colonies are documented historical fact. I am simply pointing out that there was only one muslim colony among them.
I repeat, with clarification so you don't bend the argument: You would have to prove that the bulk of the FFL came from the De Gaulle controlled colonies of Cameroon, Gabon, Chad, Middle Congo, and Ubangu-Chari. If you can make this claim, you must know the number of troops from Equatorial Africa and West Africa.
Meanwhile the French Christians of the De Gaulle colonies had already been fighting for 3 years.
That's a nice claim to make, but it's essentially the same as my initial statement that Muslims formed a plurality of the FFL's African troops -- the one you felt was and onerous breech of historical fact.. You would need to provide numbers, as well as battles, etc.
You've yet to provide an account of where and when they encountered the Nazis beyond the vaguest of unsourced assertions and heavily guarded, incomplete statistics. It all begs the question: what are you hiding by being less than forthright?
By contrast, i've given you specific units, dates, and locations where the mahometans joined the SS and shot at the allies in defense of Hitler. I've also detailed how those nazi muslims were recruited after Hitler and Himmler struck a deal with a high ranking mahometan cleric. And I've detailed how thousands of mahometan followers of that same cleric in Iraq formed an alliance with Hitler to drive the British out of the middle east.
And the best you've got are french colonial troops on the war's periphery.
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.