Iraqis Want Coalition Vocabulary Change ("Saddamists" is in)

Just gonna hafta - coupled with the military planted stories by made-up Iraqis...I'm just sayin'

Almost thought I'd heard wrong. But then I realized it fits perfectly.

This 'change' in terminology will be as successful as the term 'homicide bomber' was. Only Faux still tries to use it.

What a hoot! The language diletantes of the bush admin coin the ridiculous phrase Saddamists and, lo and behold, the Iraqis want it used, how obvious can the bush cretins be!!


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

now we are changing the story again. Do they know who the hell we are fighting.

doing terrorism, or are they the ones resisting occupation. Wasn't there recently an article explaining how the Iraqi leaders were saying terrorism bad, resistance to occupation acceptable? So just where do the Saddamists fall? :shrug:

"Sad-DAM-ists, g*d-dammit, Sad-DAM-ists! Even though they're just as bad as those g*d-dam SOD-omists. Well, mebbe not AS bad. I'd rather be gassed than probed. I guess. Mebbe."

BTW, when the hell did they start calling that planet UR-anuss? I mean, what the hell fun would the field trip to the Planetarium be if you didn't get to be all snarky when they told you about Ur-AN-us?

And also BTW, howcum all these words where you gotta be careful about which syllable you accent, are all about your butt?

:silly:

... any phrase that doesn't use the word 'Christmas'.
:sarcasm:

sympathetic to the term "insurgents" which implies fighting for one's homeland. Oops, they are! Rummy the Asshole.

:bounce:

Saddamists, like these folks?



Saddam, shown here, receiving honorary citizenship by fellow Saddamists in Detroit.

(can't find the pix of former Baathist Party supporter Rummy meeting with top party officials...)

After Reagan/Bush took Iraq off the "terror-sponsoring nations" list:

http://images.google.com/images?complete=1&q=rumsfeld+hussein&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images

(And lets be honest, this is almost certainly a U.S. preference), the hope is that after executing Saddam the resistance will lose heart and go away. This is the usual silly, immature reasoning characteristic of psychopaths like Rumsfeld.

Maybe this is akin to a "senior White House official" moniker? Kind of a catch all for those who write bullshit? But, of course, it could be true bullshit. We'll never know because we can't trust anybody anymore.

Name that enemy


Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service

In the beginning, U.S. troops in Iraq had to contend with the ``fedayeen,'' fanatical loyalists of Saddam Hussein. Then, after Hussein's government (and statue) were toppled, American troops briefly confronted ``guerrilla fighters.'' The White House objected to that term, with its evocation of Vietnam, and said U.S. troops were confronting ``dead-enders,'' desperate folks who just wouldn't give up.

Since then the term of choice has been ``insurgents,'' as in Vice President Dick Cheney's famous comment last summer that ``the insurgency is in its last throes.'' But over the Thanksgiving holiday, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld decided that ``insurgency'' didn't fit, either. `This is a group of people who don't merit the word `insurgency,''' he said Tuesday. ``I think that you can have a legitimate insurgency in a country that has popular support and has a cohesiveness and has a legitimate gripe. These people don't have a legitimate gripe.''

President Bush may have signed on to the war on ``insurgents.'' In his speech at Annapolis on Wednesday, the president said, ``The enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists.'' It is not clear whether ``rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists'' will catch on, or suffer the same fate as ``fedayeen,'' ``guerrilla'' and ``insurgents.'' But given the way the war is going, the enemy might as well be the Iraqi Cong.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N07248681.htm

WASHINGTON, Dec 7 (Reuters) - The White House danced around on Wednesday about whether "insurgents" was an acceptable term for the enemy of U.S.-led forces in Iraq.

Bush did not use the term in his 34-minute speech on Wednesday at the Council on Foreign Relations. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last week argued that those fighting U.S.-led forces in Iraq did not deserve to be called an "insurgency."

snip>

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said he had not heard any discussion that the term should be made taboo.

But he said it was important for Americans to "have a clear sense of who the enemy is." Bush has called them rejectionists, Saddamists, and terrorists.

I wonder if we'll end up with a Baathist Iraq again, a purified Baath party, cleansed of the elements introduced by Saddam Hussein?

It seems odd to me how little the Baath party is discussed in the news. When I talk with Fox-news-watchers about the Baath party, most of them don't even recognize the name. Those who do can't explain what kind of party it is, and usually assume it was some kind of "fundamentalist Islamist" party that existed only in Iraq.

Americans wouldn't recognize a paleo-Baathist Iraq with a fresh label, because they don't understand what the Baath party was. For that matter, a paleo-Baathist Syria wouldn't ping anyone's radar, either. In both countries, the regimes strayed off in different directions from the original Baathist ideology. Egypt, also, could go Baathist. They'd just have to put a different label on the National Socialism of the Middle East, and the West would be none the wiser.

That's not a gratuitous NS reference, either. (Nice post, Hitler...) It isn't just that the Baath Party in Syria is the Baath National Socialist party. These guys are and have been the real deal since 1941:

As far back as 1933, immediately after Hitler's accession to power, the British-appointed Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husayni, made contact with the German consul to declare his support and offer his help. After years of uncompromising struggle against the British and the Jews, the Mufti left Palestine, and with stops in Beirut, Baghdad and Tehran en route, reached Berlin in 1941. The most important of these stops was Baghdad, where in April 1941, an Iraqi politician called Rashid 'Ali al-Gaylani, with military support, seized power and established a pro-Axis regime. Despite some help from Syria, at that time still controlled by the Vichy authorities, the Axis powers were too far away to save him, and his regime was overthrown by British and British-led forces. In Syria a committee was formed to mobilize support for the Rashid 'Ali regime. This was the nucleus of what later became the Ba'ath party, rival branches of which came to govern both Syria and Iraq.

Rashid Ali fled and later joined the Mufti in Berlin. Among the many who supported or sympathized with the Axis during the war years were some who later became famous. Nasser recorded his sympathy and his disappointment at Germany's defeat; Sadat according to his own memoirs, was a willing co-operator in German espionage. Even Rashid 'Ali has been resuscitated as a hero in Saddam Husayn's Iraq.

Quote from: The Middle East. The Brief History of the Last 2000 Years. By Bernard Lewis (Scribner 1995) pp. 348-9

Not that I'm saying there's a big fat NS conspiracy - I'm saying, it's 03:37 and I should be in bed, but instead I'm up making wacky posts on the intarweb. :-)

Edit: Here's a small collection of quotes from a so-so website about the subject:

http://www.flensburg-online.de/nazizeit/baath-partei-und-nsdap.html

that there are hundreds of thousands people in Iraq opposing the US with loyalties and organization independent of the "terrorists" and even, if he is executed, Saddam. By the way god help the "terrorists" if we ever get out. The Baathists will liquidate every one as soon as they are no longer useful in the insurgency.

:)

written plan: "Saddamists, Rejectionists, and Jihadists". Bush fucked up even making these distinctions. He should just stay with "terrorists" to keep things simple for his stupid kool aid drinkers.

I suppose the thinking is that if Iraqi men are as homophobic as your average Bible thumpin' American, they won't want to join a group that sounds so much like Sodomists. I can also see this being used to blur the line between the "war on terror" and the war on gays here at home.

"What yer wona them sod-o-mists?"

Even though if they wanted to be closer to it they would have called them Sadamites, but that, I think would be a little too obvious.