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."
Actually, I have condemned terrorism in all forms and will never defend a terrorist or sympathizer. But by transitivity, you support concentration camps and extrajudicial imprisonment of loyal Americans based on their religious and/or ethnic background alone.
You forgot poopyhead.
The defense ministry was vacated with the arrest of its criminal occupant the morning before the coup. The four branches of the military put Pinochet in charge of the whole armed forces that morning because his branch was the most senior.
There was also no constitution, de facto or de jure thanks to Pinochet.
Actually you can thank Allende for that. The constitution was recognized to be in a state of dysfunction at least three weeks prior when the Chamber of Deputies met and found it usurped by Allende. That is why Frei specifically described Pinochet's action as legal.
Yes - Pinochet, in his capacity as commander in chief of the military. Frei instructed his supporters specifically to seek military intervention months before the military was even considering it.
All you have are some vague anti-Allende statements that appeal to an army not yet commanded by Pinochet.
Actually there are several very specific statements on record calling for and approving of military action.
"The country has no way out other than a military government. The world does not know that Chilean Marxism had at its disposal arms superior in number and quality to that of the Chilean Army. The Armed Forces were called,and they complied with a legal obligation, because the executive and judiciary, the Congress and the Supreme Court, had all publicly denounced the presidency and its regime for destroying the Constitution." - Frei, statement to the Spanish media, October 10, 1973 Notice his precise language. He specifically attributes the destruction of the Constitution to Allende, not Pinochet. Pinochet's response, he said, was a "legal obligation" made specifically because Allende destroyed the constitution. And once again, I'll defer to Frei's unquestioned expertise on what was legal or not in Chile over your own.
And yet you still dabble only in percentages, and then only in certain countries while excluding others. Every time I press you for actual specific troop numbers and actual tasks, unit assignments, and places of deployment you retreat back into vague generalizations and demand I construct whatever present number you purport to be following from the litter trail of percentages, half-sourced claims, and guesstimates you've dropped all over this thread. It strongly suggests that you are trying to hide something, which would not be the first time you did so on this subject.
Contrast that to what I've given you for the 13th Waffen-SS, including the specific recruitment number, the specific muster numbers for 3 different dates in the war, and the specific places they fought.
Truly, that sort of information should not be at all difficult for you to produce:
1. State the total number of colonial FFL troops from 1939-1945.
2. State the total number of FFL troops from 1939-1945 supplied by colony, or in percentage by colony WITH REFERENCE to a precise total figure that those colonies provided collectively.
3. Provide some basic information about the capacity in which these troops served such as unit or division, along with a basic record of the dates and locations of battles in which those units or divisions fought.
You're projecting again. You began the percentage discussion in 263: "Apples and oranges again. 20,000 of approx. 18 million is a tiny fraction of the overall troop strength."
The Wermacht had about 18,000,000 soldiers and 21,000 of them were Muslims.
Okay. Now add the Italian troop strength to that.
Next add any Axis colonial troops that assisted the Axis operations in Africa in any way. Libya, Italian Somalia and Eritrea are among the more notable Axis colonies with muslim populations, so a breakdown of muslims among those troops should be accounted for and added to the 13th Waffen-SS. You will also want to account for all west african troops who fought on the Vichy side of things from 1939-1942, break out the muslim populations for them, and add that to Hitler's muslim total. And you'll want to add in lesser allies of the Reich. This includes the troops of Rashid Ali al-Gillani, who allied with Hitler and attacked the British in the middle east. The British recorded taking 10,000 casualties and prisoners from the Iraqi nazis, and their total army would have been significantly larger.
That should give you two figures: (1) total Atlantic theater axis forces, and (2) muslims in the Atlantic theater axis forces. Remember, this latter figure includes 21,000 from the 13th Waffen-SS + at least 10,000 under Rashid Ali al-Gillani + all muslims who assisted from the Italian colonies + all muslims who assisted from the Vichy colonies.
Next we can turn to the allied side of the Atlantic theater. This means adding up all the atlantic theater troops of the Soviet Union, Great Britain, and the United States. Add to that the Czech, Polish, Greek, Belgian, Dutch, Scandinavian and French troops who fought at the war's beginning or in occupied territories, and their respective European resistance movements. Next you can add the total for all the allied African colonial troops you keep talking about, muslim and non-muslim.
Separate from that, provide a RELIABLE number for the muslims among the colonial african troops.
That too should give you two numbers: (1) total Atlantic theater allied forces, and (2) muslims in Atlantic theater allied forces.
Now for both allies and axis powers, divide figure 2 into figure 1 and multiply the totals by 100. That will give you the percentage of muslims fighting on each side of the war in the atlantic theater. Right now I'm betting that the Axis percentage is larger.
Is that a synonym for Koran or what it should be used to wipe up?
Except that you advocate and defend comforters and supporters of jihadi terrorism nonetheless. CAIR does the same thing when they condemn Osama in name then engage in political advocacy for jihadis. So I guess in many ways you're just like CAIR.
You're being intentionally dishonest again (big surprise for a muslim jihadi sympathiser). I have never denied that Chad supported De Gaulle, and in fact openly pointed that out to you in post #200.
In war control of a region is determined by allegiance and lines of battle. The named colonies either gave their allegiance to De Gaulle, or were taken by him early on as he shifted the line of battle. Nothing subjective about that
I'm simply pointing out your willingness to play with numbers.
...says the guy who resisted giving specific muslim troop strength numbers for two weeks and hundreds of posts.
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.
Your limited grasp of statistics is showing. Suppose I'm a French colonel recruiting in Gabon, which is 1% muslim. Also suppose I have 100 recruiters, and they are all equally productive. Each recruiter I send out brings back 2 soldiers in a week.
If I simply spread them out equally and said "recruit" I would get a recruitment sample that's pretty close to the population of Gabon. About 1% of my recruits from Gabon would be muslim and 99% would be something else. TOTAL: 2 muslims, 198 non-muslims.
Now suppose I got a crazy hunch and decided I was going to concentrate my recruitment efforts on muslims. So instead of having everyone recruit at random from the population at large, I take 10 of my men and assign them to only recruit at mosques. That would make for a very concentrated effort BTW - the equivalent of spending 5% of my budget on only 1% of the population, or five times what I would get if I recruited at random. The other 90 are still told to recruit anywhere. So another week passes by and 200 more recruits show up. The 10 guys sent to mosques bring back 20 muslims. The 90 guys sent everywhere else bring back 180 troops, 1% of them (or 1.8, rounded up to 2 soldiers) muslim. TOTALS: 22 muslims, 178 non-muslims.
Conclusion: Even by wratcheting up my muslim recruitment concentration to 5 times its portion of the population's religious distribution, I still end up with an army that's only 11% muslim.
For some reason I suspect that De Gaulle was willing to take anybody he could get circa 1940, and thus did not waste his time concentrating on muslim recruits - particularly since only one of his colonies even had a sizable muslim population in the first place.
So you're entering in a number of 12-13,000 Muslims then?
Do you intend to add any others to this total to represent all muslims on the allied side? If so, now's the time to put it out on the table.
He tried to dodge the question and has yet to give a straight answer. He comes close in #288, although his antipathy for law-abiding American citizens are exposed in #62, #66, and #80.
Once again, given your penchant for intentionally misrepresenting your adversaries, I'll have to take his word on it.
Allegiance to Islam is sedition in a time of war. Islam is NOT a religion. It is a hostile political system. We had no trouble shutting down hostile Nazi and Japanese "patriotic" organizations during World War II. This is no different.
My emphasis. Un-American bigotry in the original.
Certain "faiths" are prone to commit evil, mahometanism being the foremost among them.
"Faiths" don't kill people. People kill people.
You have yet to cite a moderate Muslim theologian who vociferously supports Ghazili's views on "violent holy war."
Iraq is a continent away, and there are plenty of other wartorn 3rd world craphole countries in his own neighborhood[...]
Carefull, lqclamar, your bigotry is showing.
So "Rights to settle Iberia" = "transfer of the political powers of the repatriated foreign widow of a murdered king"? No.
Actually, he was elected king of a new kingdom, Asturias.
The Italian campaign, the liberation of France, the 1939-1940 defense of France and the 1939-1940 North Africa campaigns.
. 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.
No, you've mentioned an Iraqi politician who commanded troops on occasions and also fought the British. You have yet to prove that these troops were "followers" of Husayni.
Please point to teh constitutional provision that allows for the various heads of military branches to name a new defense minister.
Please explain how this speaks to your claim (#231) that before the coup 1) Frei believed that Pinochet intended to preserve the constitution and 2) expressed those beliefs either publicly or privately.
Actually there are several very specific statements on record calling for and approving of military action.
If you have any record of Frei -- before the coup -- voicing his opinion that Augusto Pinochet intended to preserve the constitution, please let us know.
He specifically attributes the destruction of the Constitution to Allende, not Pinochet. Pinochet's response, he said, was a "legal obligation" made specifically because Allende destroyed the constitution. And once again, I'll defer to Frei's unquestioned expertise on what was legal or not in Chile over your own.
And once again, I'll take any political statements with a grain of salt when they are uttered under a military dictatorship that did not gurantee freedom of speech and had a history of killing and torturing its political opponents.
1,250,000 FFL troops by the end of the war.
2. State the total number of FFL troops from 1939-1945 supplied by colony, or in percentage by colony WITH REFERENCE to a precise total figure that those colonies provided collectively.
In World War 2 "The Tirailleurs Sénégalais made up the lion’s share of the colonial troops (275,354 men, total), followed by the Indo-Chinese units (88,898 men)." -- Raffael Scheck in his article on African POWs in the Second World War, in the Journal of Modern History, July 2005
3. Provide some basic information about the capacity in which these troops served such as unit or division, along with a basic record of the dates and locations of battles in which those units or divisions fought.
See above.
Your #233: "But since some of the places in question were less than 1% muslim, their enlistment rates could be twice that of everybody else and they'd still be a tiny minority in the FFL. Or in other words, inconsequential and peripheral."
Emphasis mine. Dimissal of 1% Muslim troop strength yours.
That too should give you two numbers: (1) total Atlantic theater allied forces, and (2) muslims in Atlantic theater allied forces.
I'm not going to hunt for numbers jsut to please you. I've just cited above some 275,354 West African troops and we've earlier established that approximately 2/3rds of those troops were Muslims. This gives approximately 180,000 West African Muslim troops alone. This is 9 times the number that the Nazis had. The Nazis also had 18,000,000 soldiers, so if you can find some record of some 162,000,000 Allied troops in the Atlantic theater, then we might consider that the "Axis percentage is larger."
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.