Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis.In an earlier article titled “The Nile, Egypt, Sudan (Ethiopia) and Abyssinia (Fake Ethiopia): Real Divide and False Literature”
(http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/165479), I refuted inaccuracies, falsehood, and deceitful information included in Nelson Marans’s farfetched report “Egypt's Nile Monopoly is Starving Ethiopia”. I demonstrated that Egypt’s rightful claim on Cairo’s internationally recognized share of the Nile waters cannot be possibly called “Nile monopoly”, and more critically, that Abyssinia (fallaciously re-baptized as Ethiopia) is not starving because of Egypt’s and Sudan’s fully legitimate reliance on the international agreements that stipulate the two nations’ rights on the Nile waters.

In earlier articles, I rebutted several wrong concepts and widely diffused confusion pertaining to Sudan, Egypt, Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia) and the Nile basin waters. Here are the titles of and links to these articles:

  • Can Sudan Survive and Remain Intact? Plead for Sudan’s De-Arabization, Pacification, and Expansion” (http://www.buzzle.com/articles/can-sudan-survive-and-remain-intact-plead-for-sudan’s-de-arabization-pacification-and-expansion.html)


  • Sudan. Survival Means De-Arabization, De-Colonization, Renewal of Mahdist Policy vs. Fake Ethiopia (http://www.buzzle.com/articles/sudan-survival-means-de-arabization-de-colonization-renewal-of-mahdist-policy-vs-fake-ethiopia.html)


  • Peace in Sudan Means Irrevocable Destruction of Abyssinia, a.k.a Fake Ethiopia (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/164117)


  • False Divide on the Nile: Downstream (Sudan, Egypt) vs. Upstream (Fake Ethiopia, Others) Countries (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/164443)


  • Real Divide on the Nile: Fake Ethiopia vs. Sudan and Egypt (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/164706)


    • I will dedicate the present article to an ignorant journalist who became a bogus-historian for the otherwise odd needs of an article on the Nile waters, Egypt, Sudan (the country that was historically called Ethiopia by the Ancient Greeks and Romans), and Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia). I will first publish the integral text of Gwynne Dyer’s fallacy which was published in several portals under the misleading title “Egypt's neighbors press for more Nile water” whereas the correct title should be “I am ignorant and hateful of Egypt”. Figures inserted in the text refer to points of my Commentary, which is made available after Gwynne Dyer’s fallacious text.

    Egypt's neighbors press for more Nile water
    By Gwynne Dyer
    http://www.ethioquestnews.com/The_Africans/Nile_Politics/Is_a_water_war_0n_the_Horizon.html

    After he signed the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty in 1979, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat said: “The only matter that could take Egypt to war again is water”. Well, the world kept turning, and now a potential war over water is creeping onto Egypt’s agenda. 1

    Egypt is the economic and cultural superpower 2 of the Arab world: 3 its 78 million people account for almost a third of the world’s Arabic-speaking population. But 99 percent of it is open desert, 4 and if it were not for the Nile River running through that desert, 5 Egypt’s population would not be 6 any bigger than Libya’s (five million). So Cairo takes a dim view of anything that might diminish the flow of that river. 7

    Back in 1929, when the British Empire controlled Egypt 8, Sudan, and most of the countries further upstream in East Africa 9, it sponsored an agreement giving Cairo the right to veto any developments upstream that would decrease the amount of water in Nile. 10 The rationale at the time was that the upstream countries had ample rainfall, whereas Egypt and Sudan (at the time ruled as one country) 11 depended totally on the Nile’s waters.

    Thirty years later, in 1959, when Egypt and Sudan were already independent but all of the upstream states except Ethiopia 12 were still colonies, Egypt and Sudan signed another agreement that left only 10 percent of the Nile’s water to the seven upstream countries, while giving Egypt almost 80 percent and Sudan the rest. The argument was still the same: the countries further upstream had rainfall, while it hardly ever rains in Egypt or Sudan. 13

    Now the upstream countries 14 that got almost no water in that deal 15 are rejecting it. 16 Thirteen years ago, they persuaded Egypt and Sudan to start talks on the river, 17 but they have now concluded that the two Arab countries 18 really only joined the talks to prevent any new deal. 19 So they are now going ahead without them. 20

    Uganda, Rwanda, Tanzania and Ethiopia signed an agreement 21 on May 14 to seek more water from the Nile. Kenya signed a few days later, and the Congo and Burundi are expected to do so soon. 22 Kenya’s minister of water resources, Charity Ngilu, 23 described the 1929 treaty as “obsolete and timeworn”, and said that Egypt and Sudan had “no choice” 24 but to negotiate a reallocation of the Nile’s waters. 25

    The Egyptian government replied that the new agreement “is in no way binding on Egypt from a legal perspective”, and that “Egypt will not join or sign any agreement that affects its share”. It’s an understandable perspective, since Cairo must figure out how to feed not 78 but 95 million Egyptians in only fifteen years’ time. 26

    But it is a perspective that gets little sympathy in Addis Ababa, 27 which must feed 91 million 28 Ethiopians 29 now but will have to find food for 140 million fifteen years from now. 30 All the countries in East Africa and the Horn of Africa have far higher population growth rates than Egypt, and they are getting worried about how to feed their people. 31 So they want to use some of the Nile’s water for irrigation projects for their own. 32

    Ethiopia, whose rivers provide 85 percent of the water that eventually reaches Egypt, 33 is especially militant. 34 As Ethiopian President Meles Zenawi said earlier this year: “The current regime cannot be sustained. It’s being sustained because of the diplomatic clout of Egypt. There will come a time when the people of East Africa and Ethiopia will become too desperate to care about these diplomatic niceties. Then, they are going to act”. 35

    Predictions of “water wars” are commonplace, and yet they hardly ever happen: it’s almost always cheaper to cut a deal and share the water. But the Nile basin contains 400 million people today, 36 and Egypt and Sudan, with only 120 million people, are using almost all of its water. 37

    In fifteen years’ time there will be almost 800 million people in the Nile basin, 38 and only 150 million of them will be Egyptians and Sudanese. 39 It is very hard to believe that the latter two countries will still be able to keep 90 percent of the river’s water for their own use. 40 On the other hand, how do they survive without it? 41

    In the past, Egypt has safeguarded its share by threats of military action. Since it was in an entirely different military league from the countries to the south, 42 those threats had some substance. But now the military disparities 43 are less impressive, and Egypt’s options have narrowed dramatically. 44

    As Meles Zenawi said recently: “I think it is an open secret that the Egyptians have troops that are specialized in jungle warfare. Egypt is not known for its jungles. So if these troops are trained in jungle warfare, they are probably trained to fight in the jungles of the East African countries. 45

    “From time to time Egyptian presidents have threatened countries with military action if they move. While I cannot completely discount the sabre-rattling, I do not think it is a feasible option. 46 If Egypt were to plan to stop Ethiopia from utilizing the Nile waters it would have to occupy Ethiopia, 47 and no country on earth has done that in the past”. 48

    Commentary

    1. This is really a bad start; it means that the author is assuming a lot! A potential water war over the Nile is a ridiculous story written only to offer a complete deception to the readers. Referring to the Nile Basin Initiative member states, Congo, Burundi, Tanzania, Rwanda and Kenya will never make a war for the Nile waters because
    a. the Nile does not cross their territories, and
    b. whatever use they may make of their water resources, they will not reduce in anything the Nile flow.

    Furthermore, Uganda will never make a war for the Nile waters because whatever use Kampala may make of Uganda’s water resources, including a dam on the tributary of the White Nile that crosses Ugandan territory, does not affect the White Nile flow but for very little.

    The discussion is here about the Blue Nile waters only, and the subject evolves around Egypt, Sudan and Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia) exclusively; in such a case too, war is totally of the question. The tyrannical authorities of Abyssinia know only too well that a war against Egypt and the Sudan will immediately bring forth the total, ultimate, and irreversible destruction of the Cemetery of African Nations that is named today fake Ethiopia.

    With more than fifteen subjugated nations and ethno-religious groups reviling the Amhara – Tigray Tewahedo (Monophysitic) Abyssinian ruling tribes, any mobilization would mean secession, revolution against the racist tyranny, and total destruction of the colonial state.

    Probably Gwynne Dyer failed to ask the subjugated, indigenous, Kushitic and Nilo-Saharan nations with whom they would side in case of a theoretical war between Egypt and Sudan vs. Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia). It is therefore necessary for me at this moment to help him better understand the realities of the tyrannical realm he tried to defend, and make the following available to him:

  • The Ogadenis side with Egypt and Sudan, and against Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia).


  • The Oromos side with Egypt and Sudan, and against Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia).


  • The Afars side with Egypt and Sudan, and against Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia).


  • The Sidamas side with Egypt and Sudan, and against Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia).


  • The Hadiyas side with Egypt and Sudan, and against Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia).


  • The Gedeos side with Egypt and Sudan, and against Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia).


  • The Kaffas side with Egypt and Sudan, and against Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia).


  • The Kambatas side with Egypt and Sudan, and against Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia).


  • The Shekachos side with Egypt and Sudan, and against Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia).


  • The Wolayitas side with Egypt and Sudan, and against Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia).


  • The Nuers side with Egypt and Sudan, and against Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia).


  • The Bertas side with Egypt and Sudan, and against Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia).


  • The Gumuz side with Egypt and Sudan, and against Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia).


  • The Shinashas side with Egypt and Sudan, and against Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia).


  • The Agaw side with Egypt and Sudan, and against Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia).


  • And the Amhara and Tigray Muslims also side with Egypt and Sudan, and against Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia).


    • All this is known to the criminal gangsters who rule Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia), and they will do their ingenious best to avoid a war with Sudan and Egypt, just as they have indiscriminately done so long, under monarchical, third world communist, and pseudo-republican regimes. The current, inefficient noise is just a diplomatic effort which does not reflect only the sole interests of Abyssinia but those of Israel too.

    In conclusion, Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia) is too weak a state to successfully undertake a war against Eritrea; how could it possibly turn against one or both of its northern neighbours? Actually, Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia) never undertook a real war over the past century; it was defeated and occupied by the Italian colonials, liberated by the English colonials, defended by Cuban soldiers and Soviet advisors in 1977 (in Ogaden), and thrown out of Somalia two years ago due to the effective resistance of Somali youth.

    The colonial expansion of Abyssinia in the second half of the 19th century was not just a series of successful wars as an ignorant may be willing to accept today because of the racist Abysso-fascist propaganda; there was a tremendous colonial involvement first deployed by the French and later by the English. This involvement hinged on total ban of arms sales to all the aforementioned African nations that the Abyssinians invaded one after the other and only with the force of firearms used against spears - and these firearms were either given to them as present or bought with money collected from slave trade, as Prof. Mekuria Bulcha already demonstrated.

    In real terms of equitable equipment the filthy Abyssinians would have been defeated by the noble Kushites and Nilo-Saharans whom the Abyssinians intentionally occupied either to exterminate or barbarize.

    2. The over-magnification of Egypt is at this point part of the deceitful techniques involved in the composition of Gwynne Dyer’s fallacy. In fact, it is doubtful whether there is one superpower in today’s world. Gwynne Dyer tries to depict Egypt negatively, and that’s why he tries to portray the Arab League’s largest member state as a reviled and arrogant superpower. He tries to collect his readers’ feelings against superpowers, and then fittingly divert them against Egypt. A really cheap method!

    3. The so-called Arab world is a colonial fabrication; I extensively denounced the fake ideology that caused many problems in North Africa, East Africa, and the Middle East. Indicatively: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/pan-arabism-inhuman-progenitor-islamic-terrorism.html

    More recently: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/154339

    I have however to add here, for Gwynne Dyer’s surprise, that Pan-Arabism created troubles and problems mainly to the different non Arabic nations of the region, because they fell victims and for some time they imagined they were Arabs without ever being; and the real beneficiaries of this fabrication were mainly the colonial countries, namely England, France, America, and Israel.

    4. The fallacious concept, according to which 99% of Egypt’s territory is desert, is contradicted by all official data and geographical publications. For anyone to claim this idiocy, it means total ignorance, dire inability to surf the web or even more, vicious and unbalanced personality inclined to paranoid lies. The Delta area alone covers 5.5% of Egypt’s territory; if we consider Egypt’s total area (1 million km2), we can figure out that the desert does not exceed 90 – 91% of Egypt’s territory. More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Egypt

    Certainly, most of Egypt’s territory is desert; but for the incredible forger Gwynne Dyer, it makes a great difference to substitute 91% with 99%. It makes him feel that he eliminates Egypt from the map. If he had really humane and humanitarian concerns, he should rather try to eliminate Abyssinia, (fake Ethiopia) – an immense cemetery of subjugated nations.

    5. This sentence is hypothetical and therefore nonsensical; if we hypothesize about the non existence of basic geographical traits, then all options are open. If the Nile did not exist, there could be a vast lake in Egypt! Who can oppose this? This is the level of Gwynne Dyer’s childish nonsense!

    6. So, the assumption that, had the Nile never crossed Egypt, the country’s population would equal that of Libya is absolutely idiotic. The answer is simple: no, in such a hypothetical discussion, we can easily assert that Egypt’s population would be similar in numbers to that of Algeria which is not crossed by a major river either, i. e. ca. 35 million people!

    By the way, Libya’s population in 2010 totals ca. 6.5 million – not 5 million. As it appears, Gwynne Dyer has an ostentatious and urgent predisposition to reduce the population of some countries. Good skills to be hired by the genocide perpetrators and gangsters who rule Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia)! But, impermissible for someone who pretends to be a London-based Canadian journalist. …

    7. This statement too is irrelevant and ridiculous. Cairo – like any other capital in the world – takes a dim view of anything that undermines or challenges Egypt’s internationally recognized rights. Is that not normal?

    Gwynne Dyer has perhaps to consider whether Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia) would not take a dim view of the forthcoming and rightful secession of Ogaden.

    And, what about Israel? Would it not take a dim view of the peace activists and the flotilla that tried to break the illegal and inhumane Gaza blockade? This is up to Gwynne Dyer to answer!

    8. History and Gwynne Dyer are most probably the two most diametrically opposed elements in the world. The English empire did not control Egypt in 1929. England issued a unilateral declaration of Egypt’s independence as of 22 February 1922 (Easy for Gwynne Dyer to remember: 22-2-22!) More on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt#Modern_history

    9. This is another lie! England controlled the Sudan, and the territories of today’s Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Kenya and Tanzania, whereas Belgium controlled Congo, and Italy controlled Eritrea and Somalia’s largest part. Ogaden was under colonial control only nominally, and the last Oromo kingdom of Jimma still existed. This was the real situation in 1929. A few years later, Italy invaded and annexed the anachronistic kingdom of Abyssinia; this is probably something Gwynne Dyer wants to forget. What a pity for him, and what a bad luck for his unsuspicious readers ….

    10. The expression “the right to veto any developments upstream” is fallacious and perfidious. As per note 1 above, there cannot be “developments upstream” that would trigger an Egyptian veto – except “developments in Abyssinia”. In fact, the White Nile contributes 28% of the United Nile’s waters that reach Egypt. Blue Nile’s contribution amounts to 58%, and the rest (14%) is due to Atbarah. In this case, Gwynne Dyer’s erroneous and deceitful sentence should be rewritten as follows: “the right to veto any developments in Sudan and Abyssinia”. With the cooperation between Cairo and Khartoum being effective, the troublesome sentence should be finally rewritten as follows: “the right to veto any developments in Abyssinia”.

    Majestic falsification indeed! Gwynne Dyer tried to identify the Abyssinian tyranny with the entire Nile Basin upstream lands!

    11. Another grave historical mistake; Egypt and Sudan were not ruled “as one country” at the time (1929).

    12. Abyssinia cannot be called Ethiopia; the use of the name Ethiopia by Abyssinia is historically false, and politically wrong; it bears witness to intentional genocide. More: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/calling-abyssinia-as-ethiopia-part-of-the-oromo-ethiopian-genocide.html

    13. The same argument is still valid now. There are more important issues related to the subject; the subjugated nations of the Berta, the Gumuz, the Oromos, and the Agaw are the only rightful inhabitants of the lands crossed by the Blue Nile in Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia). The current Amhara – Tigray Tewahedo (Monophysitic) Abyssinian regime is not entitled to occupy their lands. The presence of Abyssinian state authorities on the lands of the Berta, the Gumuz, the Oromos, and the Agaw is due exclusively to the “right” of conquest.

    This sort of ‘‘right’’ is not accepted within today’s context of International Law. Meles Zenawi’s dictatorial administration has no right to occupy those lands. It is imperative for Sudan to organize and fuel the resistance of these nations against the criminal, genocidal regime of Abyssinia, and for Egypt to make this reality widely known throughout the world community.

    14. The repetition of the same lie, the fake divide into “upstream” and “downstream” countries makes of Gwynne Dyer the Canadian Dr. Goebbels of the 3rd millennium!

    15. “Got almost no water”! What a ridiculous lie! Almost all the upstream countries, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi and Congo can benefit from all the water resources they have on their territories, without affecting the Nile waters’ flow in Egypt and the Sudan. The term can eventually be used for Abyssinia, but the lack of legitimate Abyssinian control over the lands crossed by the Blue Nile within the colonial state of the Amhara and the Tigray tribes and the existence of many other rivers and numerous lakes on Abyssinia’s territory makes the term sound comical.

    Why don’t they try to exploit their other water resources first?

    This is the question to which Gwynne Dyer had to answer first, before writing his unsubstantiated fallacy.

    16. Another lie! Not a single upstream country, except Abyssinia, rejected the said agreement because simply it does not prevent them from exploiting their Nile basin water resources. And Abyssinia, as it is typical for the coward, dirty Amhara and Tigray elites, does not dare to reject it; they only make much noise, bribing corrupt journalists to write in favour of their illegal claims. Uneducated and barbarous Amhara and Tigray hyenas have filled the web with anti-Egyptian and anti-Sudanese rhetoric, but when it comes to action, they look like frightened dogs, and then, in their capital city, the ridiculous statue of the Lion of Judah runs like a rat to hide. ……

    All they have known to do is, when they are illegally armed, to mercilessly butcher the unarmed! How heroic, legendary, epic!

    17. This is finally a point whereby Gwynne Dyer is proven correct! Persuading Egypt and Sudan to participate in the set up of the Nile Basin Initiative in 1999 was a certain success, because Khartoum and Cairo did not detect timely the plot, and thought that it was a genuine interest for regional cooperation. Taking into consideration the fact that in politics, participation offers a chance to influence, control and direct developments as per own interests, one may judge Sudan’s and Egypt’s decision to participate as correct.

    In such case, the mistake was perhaps that Sudan was engulfed into internal strives and unnecessary troubles (notably in Darfur) and that Egypt was too much focused on the Middle East.

    As it happens, Cairo and Khartoum have to make clear to Nairobi, Kampala, Dodoma, Kigali, Bujumbura and Brazzaville that, if they side with the criminal, worse-than-Nazi regime of Abyssinia, they will gain nothing more in terms of Nile basin waters exploitation, but they will loose tremendously in terms of development, social stability, and religious peace.

    Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia) must and can be isolated, punished for their evil hatred of Egypt and Ethiopia (as is Sudan’s real name), and broken down to fifteen pieces so that the numerous subjugated nations get finally their freedom and independence.

    18. Precisely, this is the point! Both Egypt and Sudan are not “Arab countries”, and Gwynne Dyer knows this reality very well. He simply exploits the fact of the wide diffusion of the Pan-Arabist ideology (which was a historical falsification – product of the colonial countries’ Orientalist academia) to describe them in a manner which involves for him – and many racist elements worldwide – a pejorative connotation. But it is all false!

    19. A new deal is not needed by anyone except Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia). The signature of an invalid agreement before one month does not reveal real needs of the other signatories; it merely reveals an Abyssinian diplomatic plot against Sudan and Egypt.

    Abyssinia can pay an extremely high price for this evildoing, which – if due concern is given to the subject – can end with the dissolution of the obsolete, colonial country – cemetery of more than fifteen Kushitic and Nilo-Saharan countries.

    20. This was a nice moment of hallucination for Gwynne Dyer! They will not go alone, because it was always known that all the so-called upstream countries, with the exception of Abyssinia, can exploit their Nile basin water resources without affecting the Nile water flow.

    Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia), provenly through the recent developments and through the words of Gwynne Dyer himself, cannot “go alone” and the unrepresentative Amhara and Tigray pseudo-diplomats, hidden behind other countries’ representatives, try to give the impression of a fake divide between the upstream and the downstream countries.

    21. The event does not reveal anything critical, except perhaps the need for a refocusing of Cairo’s policy on Northeastern Africa, and not on the Middle East. With the great shifts of power occurring between the Eastern Mediterranean and Central Asia, it has no meaning for Egypt to be concerned with Israel and Palestine, although both states have common border with Africa’s north-easternmost country. Turkey and Iran seem to be determined to offer the long awaited solution that the Palestinian people expected. This great shift should disentangle Egypt from the Middle East and turn Cairo toward Africa.

    22. Most probably, Burundi and Congo will not sign the irrelevant and insignificant agreement, but this is by far Gwynne Dyer’s minor error!

    23. What a laugh! Charity Ngilu is one of Kenya’s most corrupt politicians, and vast literature on the subject already exists online; indicatively: http://www.mashada.com/forums/kenya/95681-corruption-charity-ngilus-ministry.html

    Ms. Ngilu is certainly aware of the fact that Kenya is not concerned with the 1929 Agreement, and what measures Nairobi may take in this regard have no impact on the Nile water flow.

    Every support offered by Kenya to the gangsters around the tyrant Meles Zenawi is automatically revelatory of bribery, and Charity Ngilu has already got a long record in this regard. She is therefore the last to speak about the validity of international agreements.

    On the contrary, Charity Ngilu should rather reply to the devastating Report published recently by the HRW on the mistreatment of the Somali refugees in Kenya. If she fails to offer a convincing response on this, most preoccupying, subject she can then just shut up about the rest – and the Nile flow more particularly.

    24. Most probably, Charity Ngilu had “no choice” to avoid offering her support to Africa’s most bestial gangsters, the Amhara – Tigray regime of Abyssinia, because she must have already been exposed and too weak to possibly deny support to those who bribed her for most of her disreputable career. This multi-bribed female Kenyan Freemason is well known among the Oromos and the Somalis of Kenya; they do provide indeed vast information about her participation in Kenya’s secret societies and black magic circles whereby ritualistic assassinations are customarily performed.

    25. Reallocation of the Nile waters is nothing that can possibly concern countries other than Egypt, Sudan and Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia). Since the subject does not exist for Cairo and Khartoum, the Abyssinian cannibals of the Zenawi regime must reconsider because in their effort for “more water” they can have “less control” over the territory that they still illegally and criminally occupy.

    26. Prospective understanding and futurology are out of subject; the International Law is valid under any circumstances whatsoever, and Egypt’s right on Cairo’s share of the Nile waters is based on documents relevant to the International Law, not the Egyptian population.

    27. Use of the name of Addis Ababa signifies participation in or unawareness of the Oromo genocide; the correct name for that place is Finfinnee which is an Oromo name. Finfinnee will be the free Oromo capital of independent Oromia, and the name Addis Ababa represents only a late 19th century phase of the Oromo genocide, when the Abyssinian capital was transferred there in order to further ensure oppression and extermination of the subjugated Oromos.

    Gwynne Dyer should therefore humbly apologize to the entire Oromo Nation – a great and illustrious nation totaling ca. 40 million people.

    28. Oh, how comical! The total population of Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia) does not exceed 77 or 83 million according to various sources as per below (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_size_of_Ethiopia's_population&alreadyAsked=1&rtitle=What_is_the_size_of_Ethiopia_population // http://www.trueknowledge.com/q/what_is_the_population_of_ethiopia_in_2010). According to the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopia), it was 78 million people in 2008. It is not 91 million people ( ! ) as Gwynne Dyer idiotically assumes.

    Even worse, this population is not ascribed to the state imposed on them because the country’s outright majority belongs to nations that are ethnically, linguistically, culturally and religiously totally different from the ruling Tewahedo (Monophysitic) Abyssinians.

    What matters in this regard is not the total population of Abyssinia, but the population of the Amhara and Tigray Tewahedo (Monophysitic) Abyssinians who rule tyrannically over all the rest. They amount to ca. 17 – 18% of the country’s population. This means that the criminal rulers of the shameful state of fake Ethiopia care truly about only 15 – 16 million people.

    And this concludes the case for the ignorant Mr. Gwynne Dyer who should go through the following literature to better understand the criminality of the illegal and unhistorical regime that he thoughtlessly tried to defend: http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/7-27-2005-73755.asp
    and http://www.opendemocracy.net/exploring_the_socio_historical_divide_semitic_amharas_and_kushitic_oromos_0

    In a forthcoming article, I will complete the refutation of Gwynne Dyer’s fallacy.

    Note
    Picture:     East Africa
    From: http://mabryonline.org/blogs/howard/archives/n_africa_mid_east_pol_95.jpg