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."
If you had spent the past few years spewing some Hutu Power filth or claiming that Muslims aren't really Americans, then yes, I would say that shipping you of tens of thousands of machetes (as was the case in Rwanda) would be a transaction that "facilitates genocide".
The fact is, Enoch isn't shy to say that he is a "Detester of Islam" just like Hutu Power bigots weren't shy to say that they detested Tutsis. Why would any good American or Rwandan believe that such peoples' concentration camps or machete stockpiles might not have been orchestrated with ulterior motives?
That is an interesting characterization. If that what passes for knowledge of Islam, I'll take it as a compliment that you think I know very little.
Magic intelligence indicated Japanese attempts to seek out spies from among Issei. This does not justify excluding all people of Japanese from the West Coast.
I didn't say that half the country - in this study - wants internment, but that half the country wants some civil liberties restrictions on Muslims.
The same study also said that 44% of those surveyed believed that the right to criticize the government should be curtailed. So if 44% want to curtail the civil liberties of people with different religious beliefs, 43% want to curtail civil liberties in general.
there's nothing particularly "religious" about the goal of Islam.
Are you suggesting, as your intellecutal forbears did, that there exist some Protocols of certain Elders who are bent on world domination and organize under the guise of faith?
If anything, I would trust converts like Ellison even less than I'd trust someone who grew up with it. In fact, FAR LESS.
Interesting. I tend to distrust unabashed opponents of the Constitution and the country, such as people who regularly advocate concentration camps for Americans with different religious beliefs.
If you visit my links, you'll see a defense of Powell and his so-called "rivers of blood" speech from the Jewish World Review. You might learn something.
Believe me, I have. The eulogy (if it can be called that) prattles on about the dangers of dusky immigrants at our shores almost more than it discusses Powell himself. It underscores my belief that, while Powell may have been misunderstood, his modern-day supporters have a disturbing fixation on the idea of national purity. I'll add that the piece was written by Don Feder, who believes that Katrina was God's punishment for Bush's support for Sharon's Gaza withdrawl. (www.donfeder.com/filecabinet/09192005.doc) With friends like that...
That might be an issue, if we lived in 7th century Arabia.
No, I'm saying it needs to be read in the context in which it was created, (or "revealed", for the devout Muslims among us).
Do you take Leviticus literally?
No.
Very correct. Also remember that in the early days of WWII there were incidents where both Japanese-Americans and German-Americans (who were also interned in the east, though in fewer numbers) engaged in clear acts of sabotage and subversion.
In the first year of the war the nazis landed a boat full of saboteurs who were German-American citizens of the United States. They were executed in the famous Quirin case.
The first act of Japanese-American subversion actually happened on Dec. 7, 1941 - the day Pearl Harbor was attacked. One of the Japanese planes was hit by U.S. return fire during the attack and crash landed on the Hawaiian island of Niihau about a hundred miles to the west of Pearl Harbor. Local U.S. citizens didn't know about the attack yet, but saw the pilot was armed and acting suspiciously. They took him prisoner while attempting to get in contact with the authorities, and sent for two local Japanese-Americans to translate for the pilot. Meanwhile one of the civilians took a package of papers the pilot was carrying and attempted to contact the more heavily populated island of Kauai nearby so they could be given to the government. Unbeknownst to him, the attack on Pearl prompted the military to halt all inter-island boat travel in Hawaii, effectively cutting off Niihau from any news or contact from the outside world. The weekly boat shipment to the island never arrived for that week.
Meanwhile when the Japanese-Americans were taken to the pilot, he told them in Japanese that Pearl Harbor had been attacked and he had sensitive orders in his belongings, which were confiscated by the other civilians. The two Japanese-American translators then conspired with the pilot, helped him escape and travelled with him to a nearby village on the island and took civilians there hostage.
The three spent the next few days trying to find the civilian who had possession of the pilot's papers, intending to kill him and destroy the package. Unbeknownst to them, the papers were already on a row boat bound for Kauaii. Fortunately a group of vigilant islanders caught the three conspirators when their guard was down, killing the pilot and taking his cohorts into custody. The incident was one of the main instigators of the internment program, because both of the Japanese-American co-conspirators were U.S. citizens.
The problem with that analogy is that most Christian theologians do not adhere to Leviticus literally. By contrast, most muslim theologians - including the "mainstream" ones - profess an extremely literal adherence to the Koran.
This is no fluke coincidence. Even Ibn Khaldun and Al Ghazali, two widely influential "mainstream" muslim thinkers, expressed a belief in jihad and asserted that only Islamic governments were legitimate. The radicals like Ibn Taymiyya, Muqtada al Sadr, and Said Qutb, of course, go far beyond those already extreme premises. In the greater realm of muslim theological consensus, those who do not take the Koran's mandates for jihad and islamic theocracy literally are in fact a small minority.
Powell did not belong to the BNP, making your attempt to connect him to it a faulty guilt by association argument. Powell was a Tory thru the early 70's, then an Ulster Unionist until his death. His real intellectual followers included such ranks as Margaret Thatcher and, of course, Eric Clapton.
The "radicals" you cite are from the 14th, 21st and 20th centuries. I would imagine that they go beyond the "extreme premises" of ibn Khaldun (whose work I know better), just as Pat Robertson or William Pierce go beyond the "extreme premises" of Machiavelli.
I'm not trying to hang that particular albatross around Enoch Powell's neck, although his speeches have given aid and comfort to racists throughout Albion. My quarrel here is with EnochPowellWasRight, who steadfastly refuses the condemn the BNP that uses his screen name as a catchphrase for its racism.
It is important, if that's how you interpret the Qur'an. I don't know what percentage of Muslims worldwide espouse a literalist reading of the Qur'an, but would imagine that, as with Christians, it is a relatively small but loud group.
"Do you take Leviticus literally?" Weak, weak argument for a host of reasons but I am sure that you knew that being as smart as you are.
It's not a weak argument at all. It's a question.
Yeah, and they are held up today in the islamic world as the great thinkers and intellectual anchors of "mainstream" islamic thought.
and I know that ibn Khaldun recognized non-Islamic governments as "legitimate", even if not to his ideal.
Incorrect. Khaldun recognized the ability of muslims to temporarily endure non-Islamic governments. He described the eventual overthrow of the Dar al Harb as a "religious duty" though, and wrote of the "universalism of the mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force." (The Muqaddimah) He by no means saw non-Islamic government as something tolerable or on equal footing with Islamic government, and openly advocated the establishment of the latter where it did not already exist.
The "radicals" you cite are from the 14th, 21st and 20th centuries.
Very good. You've proven that you know how to google names! But what you've also inadvertently admitted is that the intellectual strain of islamic radicalism runs very deep through Islamic history - in fact it follows a succession over 600 years in the making.
I would imagine that they go beyond the "extreme premises" of ibn Khaldun (whose work I know better)
May I take it by your scare quotes that you question whether Khaldun's advocacy of forceful conversion to Islam is indeed an extreme premise?
just as Pat Robertson or William Pierce go beyond the "extreme premises" of Machiavelli.
Your analogy is false. Pierce was a fringe writer with no significant or credible following in the western world. Taymiyya, Qutb, Sadr, Mawdudi, Wahhab, and other jihadi radicals all have significant followings among Islamic theologians, political figures, and, of course, terrorists.
The Robertson analogy is similarly false, as Robertson and his followers don't blow up busses, ambush conveys, or take and execute hostages. Sadr does. So did the terror cells spawned by Qutb and Mawduddi.
That's a very week argument at best, again returning to guilt by association with a small fringe that (unlike the jihadis in muslim countries) has never attained political credibility in Britain. One could equally say that Winston Churchill's speeches have "given aid and comfort" to the same groups, as they quote him all the time too.
My quarrel here is with EnochPowellWasRight, who steadfastly refuses the condemn the BNP that uses his screen name as a catchphrase for its racism.
My understanding is that the particular catchphrase he uses originated with Eric Clapton, not the BNP.
You would be incorrect in imagining that. Literalism is well within the mainstream of Islamic theology and has been since at least the days of Al Ghazali, himself a full fledged literalist.
Ghazali is considered the foremost theologian and thinker of "mainstream" Islam - even more so than Khaldun, who wrote more in the realm of history and politics. His influence is comparable to what Aquinas is to the Catholic Church, or St. Augustine to Christianity.
And as I indicated previously, the "radicals" of Islam like Qutb and Taymiyya took the already extreme premise of literalism, as found well inside the islamic "mainstream" of Ghazali, even further.
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.