Yet you've given no particular number that you purport to be citing - only the vague "tens of thousands." I previously remarked that your internet dictionary quote would earn you an F. Much the same, you would be failed for claiming a specific fact - such as a statistic - in your term paper, yet only citing it in the footnote to a generic source with no page number. In any such citation the burden is entirely yours to meet.
I asked you how many divisions the Mufti had. You gave a dishonest answer.
Actually you were attempting to force me into making an answer that, while seemingly fitting your argument of trying to minimize jihadi involvement in the Reich, did not accurately portray the well documented historical involvement of Husseini in Hitler's regime and the equally well documented participation of Husseini-recruited muslim SS troops in Hitler's army. You also probably thought you were being clever by asking it. That is why you respond in hostility upon discovering that I did not take the bait, and why you accuse me of dishonesty instead when my response only pointed out an inconvenient historical reality that you would prefer to overlook.
It proves nothing, since the Territory of the Afars and Issas is a tiny fraction of France's vast sub-Saharan Empire and, to my knowledge contributed few if any troops to the FFL.
But then again you can't say that since you either don't know or refuse to share the actual numbers. See what a corner you've backed yourself into?
Those Nazi loyalists had already been in power in the colonial government.
Wrong as usual. Al-Kaylani had been forced out of office the previous year by the British due to his dealings with the Nazis. He seized control again in a Nazi backed coup in 1941.
Of course, when I cited the English language's most respected dictionary, you refused to accept that definition because it's entry (1993) wasn't current enough. On the subject in question (current racist slurs), urbandictionary.com is an invaluable source, if used carefully. I'll remind you that you have yet to produce a single dictionary that defines the term in question as a religious slur rather than a racial one. I have provided two.
Much the same, you would be failed for claiming a specific fact - such as a statistic - in your term paper, yet only citing it in the footnote to a generic source with no page number.
And much the same, if you made vague reference to a book that you claimed was the keystone for all "moderate" Islamic thought and failed to provide any evidence for that claim but instead brusquely informed your reader that it was his duty to find and analyze it, you would fail.
Actually you were attempting to force me into making an answer that, while seemingly fitting your argument of trying to minimize jihadi involvement in the Reich, did not accurately portray the well documented historical involvement of Husseini in Hitler's regime and the equally well documented participation of Husseini-recruited muslim SS troops in Hitler's army.
The existence of Muslim Nazi troops is documented almost as well as the existence of Christian Nazi troops.
You also probably thought you were being clever by asking it. That is why you respond in hostility upon discovering that I did not take the bait, and why you accuse me of dishonesty instead when my response only pointed out an inconvenient historical reality that you would prefer to overlook.
I asked you how many divisions the Mufti had. You gave me a number of troops, none of whom were under his control. Which means you gave me a dishonest answer. The honest answer is that the Mufti had zero divisions.
PS -- This website (http://www.africultures.com/anglais/Edito%20anglais/Edito25.htm) gives an estimate of 200,000 WW2 troops from West Africa alone. Since their WW1 numbers roughly match with numbers used by professional historians (163,000) I have reason to trust the WW2 numbers. With a very conservative estimation of 1/3rd of the soldiers professing the Muslim faith, we have 67,000, although the number is likely much higher.