I've yet to see any evidence that this description is inaccurate.
2) refused to consider as a "reliable source" what you assumed to be "a small West African newspaper" and
Considering that their website rivals the sophistication of a geocities page, let's just say they're no Wall Street Journal.
3) have consitently denigrated the contributions and motives of African troops in World War 2.
No. I asked you to substantiate their claimed importance and, more specifically, to substantiate your portrayal of them as predominantly muslim. Since it took you two weeks of evasion before you even produced specific numbers, it is fair to say that you had great difficulty with those requests.
Again, since African countries are not literal latrines, describing them as "crapholes" is an opinion and not a fact.
Considering that their website rivals the sophistication of a geocities page, let's just say they're no Wall Street Journal.
It's interesting to know that you prefer to "judge a book by its cover" than on its merits. Needless to say, dismissing an idea based on its packaging alone is not an intellectual argument that would be considered "reliable by any academic standard."
Since it took you two weeks of evasion before you even produced specific numbers, it is fair to say that you had great difficulty with those requests.
It's possible to say that I had difficulty, but it would be more accurate to say that I did not have the specific numbers your requested at hand.