Posted on 12/31/2006 9:33:43 AM PST by kronos77
After the 9/11, a worldwide “War on terror” begun in order to disband and neutralize Islamic terrorist networks across the globe. The main focus of the largest anti-terrorist campaign in history is focused in the Middle East area, as well as in Afghanistan. The Balkan Peninsula is the European area where this campaign has also taken place, with numerous arrests and a continuous effort into riding the fundamentalist out of the area. The question arising though, is how did the extremists gain a foothold in South Eastern Europe in the first place, and what was the reaction of the international community over the previous years.
So, the outbreak of the civil war in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992 presented an unparalleled opportunity for the international Mujaheedin to storm Europe, establish safe havens in the area and thus initiate re-conquest of regions they previously ruled. The leader of Bosnia, Alia Izebegovic was eager to obtain as much assistance as possible and didn’t hesitate in providing the necessary framework by which the Islamic ties were forged. In the same year, a variety of Islamic mercenaries flocked into the Balkans in order to support the “Holy cause”, meaning the establishment of the first Islamic state in Europe. The end of the war in 1995 saw quite a few of those mujahedin, acquiring Bosnian citizenship and establishing the first Islamic community in the village of Bocinja Donja.
"Ethnic Bosnian Muslim commander talks about Jihadist determination to kill "enemies of Allah" just before the attack on Pocjelovo. "It is a Jihad... and with even greater spark to kill Allah's enemies because today they are strong and pronounced as they have never been before"
video: http://www.serbianna.com/columns/michaletos/007_files/pocjelovo.rm
(Excerpt) Read more at serbianna.com ...
And why do you accept Crowder's numbers over Scheck's?
I did not say that the collaborationist Vichy regime did not claim control over France's colonies and soldiers. I said it was patently false that West Africans fought for the Nazis. I stand by that.
57,000 hasn't been established. For example, Nazi support for Kilani does not mean Iraqi support for Nazis. Furthermore, I'll want some citations (page numbers, etc) for 1-5, and 7, as well as your reasoning behind who was Muslim and who was not.
You were.
I thought that mecca was in Saudi, I suppose that it's in Germany or France. Oh, and the Pilgrims didn't bring their idea of Christianity, they brought prayer rugs instead.
You thought wrong.
Opppps, my fault in not knowing history. lolol...:)
It is.
Whatever alliance of Muslims, Freemasons, Illuminati, and International Jewry you suggest has "taught" me is irrelevant. You offered a ridiculous statement and it will be taken as such unless you can support such a statement with factual evidence. Your unwillingness to do so creates disinformation.
Because Crowder specifically states the number mobilized IN France. Scheck is ambiguous and seems to include those in transit.
243 indicates otherwise.
For example, Nazi support for Kilani does not mean Iraqi support for Nazis.
Kilani formally allied with Nazi Germany and attacked the British enemies of Nazi Germany. That makes the troops who fought for him Nazi allies as well.
Furthermore, I'll want some citations (page numbers, etc) for 1-5, and 7
Multiple citations have been given throughout this thread and others for each unit described. You chose to ignore them at the time, and I presently lack the incentive to go back and repeat them for you. So I suggest you scroll up.
Above should refer to Post 231 where the numbers are detailed, not 243. Sorry for any confusion.
Sheck is unambiguous when he says "The overall number of Tirailleurs Sénégalais deployed in France between September 3, 1939, and June 25, 1940, was 100,000, but around one-third of them were still in training or in transit when the armistice took effect;"
243 is a list of names and numbers. There is no transparency as to how you arrived at those numbers and some of them are wrong. For example, in your figures of 10,000 casualties in Kilani's army you seem to be counting those who surrendered to the British in the course of the 6-week war.
Kilani formally allied with Nazi Germany and attacked the British enemies of Nazi Germany. That makes the troops who fought for him Nazi allies as well.
If that's your criterion, why are you ignoring the big picture? You've prattled on about 30,000 Muslims fighting on the side of the Nazis while you ignore the 18,000,000 overwhelmingly Christian soldiers in the Wehrmacht.
Multiple citations have been given throughout this thread and others for each unit described. You chose to ignore them at the time, and I presently lack the incentive to go back and repeat them for you. So I suggest you scroll up.
I've "scrolled up" and there are no page numbers or even specific books attached to each claim. As you have insinuated before (which suggests that this is how you operate) your unwillingness to provide specifics suggests that you're hiding something.
False. I've cited multiple sources on this thread and others (e.g. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1787520/posts?page=31#31). You ignored them at the time, and now you're using your laziness as an excuse to pretend that they did not exist.
and some of them are wrong.
You've yet to show that for so much as a single man.
For example, in your figures of 10,000 casualties in Kilani's army you seem to be counting those who surrendered to the British in the course of the 6-week war.
If the British recorded 10,000 Iraqi Nazi casualties, it follows logically that the Iraqi Nazi army was greater in number than 10,000 men.
To "deploy in France" does not equal "to arrive in France." Furthermore, Scheck specifically states that some were still in transit. U.S. troops currently en route to Iraq but not there yet are nonetheless deployed.
You've given the titles of books and nothing more. That would earn you an "F" on whatever term paper you might be writing.
You ignored them at the time, and now you're using your laziness as an excuse to pretend that they did not exist.
To quote you on an earlier thread, before your recent flip-flop:
If the British recorded 10,000 Iraqi Nazi casualties, it follows logically that the Iraqi Nazi army was greater in number than 10,000 men.
Then you'll have no trouble producing these numbers. And I won't expect you to consider as "casualties" the POWs who surrendered to the British at their first opportunity in this 6 week war.
Then you can discuss the 18,000,000 Christian Nazis in the Wehrmacht.
You might be confusing "deploy TO France" and "deploy IN France." How can soldiers be deployed in France if they were not already in France?
And it's quite possible that troops who had arrived by boat would take time to get to the boat.
But more to the point, Scheck gives us a figure of approx, 66,000 West African troops on the front lines defending France from Christian Nazi soldiers. Crowder gives a figure of 80,000 in France.
And I'd be inclined to go back, look up the pages, and provide them if I believed that you were interested in honestly discussing the issue. Your past behavior indicates you are not though, which inclines me to leave you to search for the pages yourself. You have the books and the numbers. If you doubt them, prove me wrong.
Zimmy's "references" derive from obscure left wing French newsletters...now that's neat trick. Ho Chi Min would approve.
Isn't this what you were castigating me for a few weeks ago? My claims held up when I found the book. You already have the books. If the numbers you cite are truly taken from these books, you have to cite the pages. If not, your own suspicions lead the rest of us to believe that you are hiding something.
I'm still waiting for you to translate the "real" meaning of نَصَارَى.
In short, Zimmy's own citation standards form himself are substantially lower than both the citations I have given and the additional information he demands of me. Again, if I believed he was honestly interested in investigating the numbers of those sources I'd take the time to oblige him. But I know from experience that he is not - he's only here to agitate and spout rabid Islamophilia while feigning a transparent interest in conversation.
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.