More stories like these please...
By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD - U.S. and Iraqi forces killed more than 60 insurgent and militia fighters in intense battles over the weekend, with most of the casualties believed to have been al-Qaida fighters, officials said Sunday.
The U.S. Embassy, meanwhile, joined a broad swath of Iraqi politicians — both Shiite and Sunni — in criticizing a nonbinding U.S. Senate resolution seen here as a recipe for splitting the country along sectarian and ethnic lines.
U.S. aircraft killed more than 20 al-Qaida in Iraq fighters who opened fire on an American air patrol northwest of Baghdad, the U.S. command said.
The firefight between U.S. aircraft and the insurgent fighters occurred Saturday about 17 miles northwest of the capital, the military said.
The aircraft observed about 25 al-Qaida insurgents carrying AK-47 assault rifles — one brandishing a rocket-propelled grenade — walking into a palm grove, the military said.
"Shortly after spotting the men, the aircraft were fired upon by the insurgent fighters," it said.
The military did not say what kind of aircraft were involved but the fact that the fighters opened fire suggests they were low-flying Apache helicopters. The command said more than 20 of the group were killed and four vehicles were destroyed. No Iraqi civilians or U.S. soldiers were hurt.
"Coalition forces have dealt significant blows to Al-Qaida Iraq in recent months, including the recent killing of the Tunisian head of the foreign fighter network in Iraq and the blows struck in the past 24 hours," military spokesman Col. Steven Boylan told The Associated Press.
Iraq's Defense Ministry said in an e-mail Sunday afternoon that Iraqi soldiers had killed 44 "terrorists" over the past 24 hours. The operations were centered in Salahuddin and Diyala provinces and around the city of Kirkuk, where the ministry said its soldiers had killed 40 and arrested eight. It said 52 fighters were arrested altogether.
The ministry did not further identify those killed, but use of the word "terrorists" normally indicates al-Qaida.
In a separate operation, U.S. forces killed two insurgents and detained 21 others during weekend operations "to disrupt al-Qaida in Iraq networks in the Tigris River Valley."
Intelligence led to a raid early Sunday that netted what the U.S. military called 15 rogue members of the Mahdi Army militia at an undisclosed Baghdad location.
The mainstream of the militia, the armed wing of anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's organization, has been ordered by the religious leader to stop attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces.
But many one-time members of the group have split off and are acting independently of al-Sadr's control. Some have gone to Iran for training and are receiving weapons and financing from the Islamic regime in Tehran.
The Senate resolution, adopted last week, proposed reshaping Iraq according to three sectarian or ethnic territories. It calls for a limited central government with the bulk of power going to the country's Shiite, Sunni or Kurdish regions, envisioning a power-sharing agreement similar to the one that ended the 1990s war in Bosnia. Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden, a Democrat presidential candidate, was a prime sponsor.
In a highly unusual statement, the U.S. Embassy said resolution would seriously hamper Iraq's future stability.
"Our goal in Iraq remains the same: a united, democratic, federal Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself," the unsigned statement said.
"Iraq's leaders must and will take the lead in determining how to achieve these national aspirations. ... attempts to partition or divide Iraq by intimidation, force or other means into three separate states would produce extraordinary suffering and bloodshed," it said.
The statement came just hours after representatives of Iraq's major political parties denounced the Senate proposal.
The Kurds in three northern Iraqi provinces are running a virtually independent country within Iraq while nominally maintaining relations with Baghdad. They support a formal division, but both Sunni and Shiite Muslims have denounced the proposal.
At a news conference earlier in the day, at least nine Iraqi political parties and party blocs — both Shiite and Sunni — said the Senate resolution would diminish Iraq's sovereignty and said they would try to pass a law to ban any division of the country.
"This proposal was based on the incorrect reading and unrealistic estimations of Iraq's past, present and future," according to a statement read at a news conference by Izzat al-Shahbandar, a representative of the secular Iraqi National List.
On Friday, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told The Associated Press that "dividing Iraq is a problem, and a decision like that would be a catastrophe."
Iraq's constitution lays down a federal system, allowing Shiites in the south, Kurds in the north and Sunnis in the center and west of the country to set up regions with considerable autonomous powers.
Nevertheless, ethnic and sectarian turmoil have snarled hopes of negotiating such measures, especially given deep divisions on sharing the country's vast oil resources. Oil reserves and existing fields would fall mainly into the hands of Kurds and Shiites if such a division were to occur.
Also Sunday, a judge delayed court proceedings for a second U.S. Army sniper accused in the deaths of two unarmed Iraqi civilians a day after a military panel sentenced a 22-year-old specialist to five months in prison for his role in the killings.
Jorge G. Sandoval was convicted Thursday of planting evidence on one of the unidentified Iraqis killed last spring. He was acquitted of two murder charges.
Sandoval had faced five charges in the deaths of the two unidentified Iraqi men. In dramatic testimony during the four-day court-martial, his colleague, Sgt. Evan Vela, testified he had pulled the trigger and killed one of the men Sandoval was accused of murdering.
Vela, 23, said the sniper team was following orders when it shot the men during two separate incidents near Iskandariyah, a Sunni-dominated area south of Baghdad, on April 27 and May 11.
On Sunday, a military judge postponed a pretrial hearing for Vela for at least a month. Vela's civilian defense lawyer had asked that the hearing be closed to the media because of classified information expected to be discussed.
The U.S. military also announced the death of an American soldier killed Saturday in a roadside bombing and gunfire attack in eastern Baghdad.
_Ramadan Mubarek Jihadi Scum__
AP correspondents Qassim Abdul-Zahra, Katarina Kratovac and Kim Curtis contributed to this report.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Friday, September 28, 2007
Full text of the top secret transcript :
So much for the anti-Bush whacko's allegations about him...And Yes, This pretty much proves the WMDs existed...Read it all.
Full text of the top secret transcript of the conversation between US President George W. Bush and Spain’s Prime Minister José Maria Aznar at Crawford, Texas, on February 22, 2003, as printed in the Madrid daily newspaper El País on September 26, 2007 (translation: José Guardia)
President Bush: We are in favor of pursuing a second resolution by the Security Council, and we would like to have it quickly. We would like to announce it on Monday or Tuesday [March 24 or 25, 2003].
PM Aznar: Better on Tuesday, after the meeting of the European Union’s General Affairs Council. It’s important to keep the momentum of the EU Summit resolution [in Brussels on Monday, February 17, 2003]. We would prefer to wait until Tuesday.
Bush: It could be on Monday afternoon, considering the time difference. Next week, in any case. We envision a resolution that doesn’t contain mandatory elements, that doesn’t mention the use of force, and that states that Saddam Hussein has been unable to comply with his obligations. Such a resolution could be voted for by many. It would be similar to the one for Kosovo [on June 10, 1999].
Aznar: Would it be submitted to the Security Council before, and independently of, a parallel declaration?
Condoleezza Rice: Actually, there wouldn’t be a parallel declaration. We are thinking about a resolution that is as simple as possible, without many details about compliance that could be used by Saddam Hussein as steps not to comply. We are talking with Blix [chief of UN inspection] and others in his team about items that could be in the resolution.
Bush: Saddam won’t change and will keep playing games. The moment of getting rid of him has arrived. That’s it. As for me, from now on, I’ll try to use the most subtle rhetoric I can, while we look for the resolution to be approved. If some country vetoes [the resolution] we’ll go in. Saddam is not disarming. We must catch him right now. We have shown an incredible amount of patience until now. We have two weeks. In two weeks, our military will be ready. I think we’ll achieve a second resolution. In the Security Council, we have three African countries [Cameroon, Angola, Guinea], the Chileans, the Mexicans. I’ll talk with all of them, also with Putin, naturally. We’ll be in Baghdad at the end of March. There’s a 15% chance that Saddam will be dead by then or will have flown. But these possibilities won’t be there until we have shown our resolution. The Egyptians are talking with Saddam Hussein. It seems he has hinted he’d be willing to leave if he’s allowed to take 1 billion dollars and all the information on WMDs. Ghadaffi told Berlusconi that Saddam wants to leave. Mubarak tells us that in these circumstances there is a big chance that he’ll get killed.
We would like to act with the mandate of the UN. If we act militarily, we’ll do it with great precision and focus on our targets to as high a degree as possible. We’ll decimate the loyal troops, and the regular army will quickly know what it’s all about. We sent a very clear message to Saddam Hussein’s generals: we will treat them as war criminals. We know they have stocked big amounts of dynamite to blow up the bridges and other infrastructure, and the oil wells. We are planning to take control of those wells very soon. Also, the Saudis will help us by putting as much oil as necessary on the market. We are developing a very strong aid package. We can win without destruction. We are already working on the post-Saddam Iraq, and I think there’s a basis for a better future. Iraq has a good bureaucracy and a relatively strong civil society. It could be organized as a federation. Meanwhile we’re doing all we can to fulfill the political needs of our friends and allies.
Aznar: It’s very important to have that second resolution. It will be very different to act with or without it. It will be very advisable to have a sufficient majority in the Security Council backing that resolution. In fact, having that majority is more important than whether some country vetoes. We think that the resolution should, among other things, clearly state that Saddam Hussein has squandered his opportunity.
Bush: Yes, of course. That would be better to mention than “the necessary means.”
Aznar: Saddam Hussein hasn’t cooperated, hasn’t disarmed - we should summarize all his non-compliance and make a more elaborate message. That, for example, would allow Mexico to change [its opposition].
Bush: The resolution will be made in a way that can help you. I don’t care much about the actual content.
Aznar: We’ll send you some text.
Bush: We don’t have any text. We only have one goal: that Saddam must disarm. We can’t allow Saddam to drag his heels until the summer. After all, he has had four months in this last stage, and that’s more than enough time to disarm.
Aznar: Such text would help us to be in a position to introduce the resolution [at the Security Council], to be its co-authors, and to convince many people to sign it.
Bush: Perfect.
Aznar: I’m meeting Chirac next Wednesday [February 16]. The resolution will be circulating by now.
Bush: I think this is a great idea. Chirac knows the situation perfectly. His intelligence services have explained it all to him. The Arabs are sending Chirac a very clear message: Saddam Hussein must go. The problem is that Chirac thinks he is “Mister Arab,” and the truth is that he’s making their lives impossible. But I don’t want any rivalry with Chirac. We certainly have different points of view, but I’d like that to be all. Give him my best regards. True! The less rivalry he feels there is between us, the better it’ll be for us all.
Aznar: How will the resolution and the report by inspectors work with each other?
Rice: Actually there won’t be a report on February 28; the inspectors will submit a written report on March 1, and they won’t appear before the Security Council until March 6 or 7, 2003. We don’t have high hopes about that report. Just like on previous occasions, they’ll cover their bases. My impression is that Blix will be more negative now about the Iraqis’ intention. After they appear at the Security Council, we forecast a vote one week later. Meanwhile, the Iraqis will try to convince that they’re complying. It won’t be true and it won’t be enough, even though they’ll likely announce the destruction of some missiles.
Bush: This is like Chinese water torture. We must put an end to it.
Aznar: I agree, but it would be good to have as many people on board as possible. Be a little patient.
Bush: I’ve run out of patience. I won’t go further than mid-March.
Aznar: I’m not asking you to have infinite patience. I’m just asking you to try as hard as possible to make everything work.
Bush: Countries like Mexico, Chile, Angola and Cameroon must know that it’s US security at play and that they must act according to their friendship to us. [Chilean president Ricardo] Lagos must know that the Free Trade Agreement is pending ratification in the Senate and that a negative attitude on this issue could jeopardize that ratification. Angola is receiving funds from the Millennium Account that could also be compromised. And Putin must know that his position is endangering Russia’s relationship with the United States.
Aznar: Tony [Blair] would like to wait until March 14.
Bush: I prefer March 10. This is like the good cop, bad cop routine. I don’t mind being the bad cop and letting Blair be the good cop.
Aznar: Is it true that there’s a chance that Saddam will go into exile?
Bush: Yes, there is. There’s even a chance that he’ll be assassinated.
Aznar: An exile with some kind of guarantees?
Bush: No guarantees. He’s a thief, a terrorist, a war criminal. Compared to Saddam, Milosevic would be a Mother Teresa. When we go in, we are going to discover many more crimes, and we’ll take him to the International Criminal Court at The Hague. Saddam Hussein believes he has escaped. He thinks that France and Germany have stopped the process of his prosecution. He also thinks that last week’s anti-war demonstrations [Saturday, February 15] protect him. And he believes I’m weakened. But people around him know that things are totally different. They know their future is in exile or in a coffin. This is why it’s so important to keep the pressure up. Ghaddafi is indirectly telling us that this is the only thing that can finish him. Saddam’s only strategy is delay, delay, delay.
Aznar: Actually, the best success would be to win the game without firing a single shot when entering Baghdad.
Bush: To me, it would be the best outcome. I don’t want war. I know what war is like. I know the death and destruction they bring. I am the one who has to comfort the mothers and wives of the dead. Of course, for us [a diplomatic solution] would be the best one. Also, it would save 50 billion dollars.
Aznar: We need you to help us with our public opinion.
Bush: We will do all we can. On Wednesday, I’m going to talk about the situation in the Middle East, proposing a new peace system that you already know about, and about weapons of mass destruction, the benefits of a free society, and I’ll put Iraq’s history in a bigger context. That may help you.
Aznar: What we are doing is a very profound change for Spain and the Spanish citizens. We are changing the last 200 years of the country’s politics.
Bush: I’m guided by a historical sense of responsibility, as you are. When history judges us in a few years, I don’t want people wondering why Bush, Aznar, or Blair didn’t confront their responsibilities. At the end of the day, what people want is to enjoy freedom. A short time ago, in Romania, I was reminded of Ceaucescu’s example: it only took a woman to call him a liar for the whole regime to come crumbling down. It’s the irrepressible power of freedom. I’m convinced I’ll achieve the resolution.
Aznar: That’s better than good.
Bush: I made the decision of going to the Security Council. In spite of some internal disagreements within my administration, I told my people that we needed to work with our friends. It will be great to have a second resolution.
Aznar: The only thing that worries me about you is your optimism.
Bush: I’m optimistic because I believe I’m doing the right thing. I am at peace with myself. We have the responsibility of facing a serious threat to peace. It irks me tremendously to contemplate the insensitivity of Europeans toward the suffering that Saddam inflicts on the Iraqis. Maybe because he’s dark-skinned, distant, and Muslim, many Europeans think that all this doesn’t matter. I will never forget what Solana [European High Representative of the Common Foreign and Security Policy] asked me once: why do Americans think that Europeans are anti-Semitic and unable to confront their responsibilities? That defensive attitude is terrible. I must admit that I have a magnificent relationship with Kofi Annan.
Aznar: He shares your ethical concerns.
Bush: The more Europeans attack me, the stronger I am at home.
Aznar: We should try to bring together your strength with the support of Europeans.
Full text of the top secret transcript of the conversation between US President George W. Bush and Spain’s Prime Minister José Maria Aznar at Crawford, Texas, on February 22, 2003, as printed in the Madrid daily newspaper El País on September 26, 2007 (translation: José Guardia)
President Bush: We are in favor of pursuing a second resolution by the Security Council, and we would like to have it quickly. We would like to announce it on Monday or Tuesday [March 24 or 25, 2003].
PM Aznar: Better on Tuesday, after the meeting of the European Union’s General Affairs Council. It’s important to keep the momentum of the EU Summit resolution [in Brussels on Monday, February 17, 2003]. We would prefer to wait until Tuesday.
Bush: It could be on Monday afternoon, considering the time difference. Next week, in any case. We envision a resolution that doesn’t contain mandatory elements, that doesn’t mention the use of force, and that states that Saddam Hussein has been unable to comply with his obligations. Such a resolution could be voted for by many. It would be similar to the one for Kosovo [on June 10, 1999].
Aznar: Would it be submitted to the Security Council before, and independently of, a parallel declaration?
Condoleezza Rice: Actually, there wouldn’t be a parallel declaration. We are thinking about a resolution that is as simple as possible, without many details about compliance that could be used by Saddam Hussein as steps not to comply. We are talking with Blix [chief of UN inspection] and others in his team about items that could be in the resolution.
Bush: Saddam won’t change and will keep playing games. The moment of getting rid of him has arrived. That’s it. As for me, from now on, I’ll try to use the most subtle rhetoric I can, while we look for the resolution to be approved. If some country vetoes [the resolution] we’ll go in. Saddam is not disarming. We must catch him right now. We have shown an incredible amount of patience until now. We have two weeks. In two weeks, our military will be ready. I think we’ll achieve a second resolution. In the Security Council, we have three African countries [Cameroon, Angola, Guinea], the Chileans, the Mexicans. I’ll talk with all of them, also with Putin, naturally. We’ll be in Baghdad at the end of March. There’s a 15% chance that Saddam will be dead by then or will have flown. But these possibilities won’t be there until we have shown our resolution. The Egyptians are talking with Saddam Hussein. It seems he has hinted he’d be willing to leave if he’s allowed to take 1 billion dollars and all the information on WMDs. Ghadaffi told Berlusconi that Saddam wants to leave. Mubarak tells us that in these circumstances there is a big chance that he’ll get killed.
We would like to act with the mandate of the UN. If we act militarily, we’ll do it with great precision and focus on our targets to as high a degree as possible. We’ll decimate the loyal troops, and the regular army will quickly know what it’s all about. We sent a very clear message to Saddam Hussein’s generals: we will treat them as war criminals. We know they have stocked big amounts of dynamite to blow up the bridges and other infrastructure, and the oil wells. We are planning to take control of those wells very soon. Also, the Saudis will help us by putting as much oil as necessary on the market. We are developing a very strong aid package. We can win without destruction. We are already working on the post-Saddam Iraq, and I think there’s a basis for a better future. Iraq has a good bureaucracy and a relatively strong civil society. It could be organized as a federation. Meanwhile we’re doing all we can to fulfill the political needs of our friends and allies.
Aznar: It’s very important to have that second resolution. It will be very different to act with or without it. It will be very advisable to have a sufficient majority in the Security Council backing that resolution. In fact, having that majority is more important than whether some country vetoes. We think that the resolution should, among other things, clearly state that Saddam Hussein has squandered his opportunity.
Bush: Yes, of course. That would be better to mention than “the necessary means.”
Aznar: Saddam Hussein hasn’t cooperated, hasn’t disarmed - we should summarize all his non-compliance and make a more elaborate message. That, for example, would allow Mexico to change [its opposition].
Bush: The resolution will be made in a way that can help you. I don’t care much about the actual content.
Aznar: We’ll send you some text.
Bush: We don’t have any text. We only have one goal: that Saddam must disarm. We can’t allow Saddam to drag his heels until the summer. After all, he has had four months in this last stage, and that’s more than enough time to disarm.
Aznar: Such text would help us to be in a position to introduce the resolution [at the Security Council], to be its co-authors, and to convince many people to sign it.
Bush: Perfect.
Aznar: I’m meeting Chirac next Wednesday [February 16]. The resolution will be circulating by now.
Bush: I think this is a great idea. Chirac knows the situation perfectly. His intelligence services have explained it all to him. The Arabs are sending Chirac a very clear message: Saddam Hussein must go. The problem is that Chirac thinks he is “Mister Arab,” and the truth is that he’s making their lives impossible. But I don’t want any rivalry with Chirac. We certainly have different points of view, but I’d like that to be all. Give him my best regards. True! The less rivalry he feels there is between us, the better it’ll be for us all.
Aznar: How will the resolution and the report by inspectors work with each other?
Rice: Actually there won’t be a report on February 28; the inspectors will submit a written report on March 1, and they won’t appear before the Security Council until March 6 or 7, 2003. We don’t have high hopes about that report. Just like on previous occasions, they’ll cover their bases. My impression is that Blix will be more negative now about the Iraqis’ intention. After they appear at the Security Council, we forecast a vote one week later. Meanwhile, the Iraqis will try to convince that they’re complying. It won’t be true and it won’t be enough, even though they’ll likely announce the destruction of some missiles.
Bush: This is like Chinese water torture. We must put an end to it.
Aznar: I agree, but it would be good to have as many people on board as possible. Be a little patient.
Bush: I’ve run out of patience. I won’t go further than mid-March.
Aznar: I’m not asking you to have infinite patience. I’m just asking you to try as hard as possible to make everything work.
Bush: Countries like Mexico, Chile, Angola and Cameroon must know that it’s US security at play and that they must act according to their friendship to us. [Chilean president Ricardo] Lagos must know that the Free Trade Agreement is pending ratification in the Senate and that a negative attitude on this issue could jeopardize that ratification. Angola is receiving funds from the Millennium Account that could also be compromised. And Putin must know that his position is endangering Russia’s relationship with the United States.
Aznar: Tony [Blair] would like to wait until March 14.
Bush: I prefer March 10. This is like the good cop, bad cop routine. I don’t mind being the bad cop and letting Blair be the good cop.
Aznar: Is it true that there’s a chance that Saddam will go into exile?
Bush: Yes, there is. There’s even a chance that he’ll be assassinated.
Aznar: An exile with some kind of guarantees?
Bush: No guarantees. He’s a thief, a terrorist, a war criminal. Compared to Saddam, Milosevic would be a Mother Teresa. When we go in, we are going to discover many more crimes, and we’ll take him to the International Criminal Court at The Hague. Saddam Hussein believes he has escaped. He thinks that France and Germany have stopped the process of his prosecution. He also thinks that last week’s anti-war demonstrations [Saturday, February 15] protect him. And he believes I’m weakened. But people around him know that things are totally different. They know their future is in exile or in a coffin. This is why it’s so important to keep the pressure up. Ghaddafi is indirectly telling us that this is the only thing that can finish him. Saddam’s only strategy is delay, delay, delay.
Aznar: Actually, the best success would be to win the game without firing a single shot when entering Baghdad.
Bush: To me, it would be the best outcome. I don’t want war. I know what war is like. I know the death and destruction they bring. I am the one who has to comfort the mothers and wives of the dead. Of course, for us [a diplomatic solution] would be the best one. Also, it would save 50 billion dollars.
Aznar: We need you to help us with our public opinion.
Bush: We will do all we can. On Wednesday, I’m going to talk about the situation in the Middle East, proposing a new peace system that you already know about, and about weapons of mass destruction, the benefits of a free society, and I’ll put Iraq’s history in a bigger context. That may help you.
Aznar: What we are doing is a very profound change for Spain and the Spanish citizens. We are changing the last 200 years of the country’s politics.
Bush: I’m guided by a historical sense of responsibility, as you are. When history judges us in a few years, I don’t want people wondering why Bush, Aznar, or Blair didn’t confront their responsibilities. At the end of the day, what people want is to enjoy freedom. A short time ago, in Romania, I was reminded of Ceaucescu’s example: it only took a woman to call him a liar for the whole regime to come crumbling down. It’s the irrepressible power of freedom. I’m convinced I’ll achieve the resolution.
Aznar: That’s better than good.
Bush: I made the decision of going to the Security Council. In spite of some internal disagreements within my administration, I told my people that we needed to work with our friends. It will be great to have a second resolution.
Aznar: The only thing that worries me about you is your optimism.
Bush: I’m optimistic because I believe I’m doing the right thing. I am at peace with myself. We have the responsibility of facing a serious threat to peace. It irks me tremendously to contemplate the insensitivity of Europeans toward the suffering that Saddam inflicts on the Iraqis. Maybe because he’s dark-skinned, distant, and Muslim, many Europeans think that all this doesn’t matter. I will never forget what Solana [European High Representative of the Common Foreign and Security Policy] asked me once: why do Americans think that Europeans are anti-Semitic and unable to confront their responsibilities? That defensive attitude is terrible. I must admit that I have a magnificent relationship with Kofi Annan.
Aznar: He shares your ethical concerns.
Bush: The more Europeans attack me, the stronger I am at home.
Aznar: We should try to bring together your strength with the support of Europeans.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Holy Shiite: Asshats, Moonbats and Eurabia
Use sparingly or for extra credit use sparringly. Your call:
Little Green Footballs Dictionary Here.
The following is a partial list of definitions of familiar terms which I've been known to use across our great wWw. For the full list and links to additional glossaries, go to LGF above.
~Aura
Aura of Arc / On A Clear Day You Can See Forever
Little Green Footballs Dictionary Here.
The following is a partial list of definitions of familiar terms which I've been known to use across our great wWw. For the full list and links to additional glossaries, go to LGF above.
Aloha Snackbar - Absurdist parody of the Islamic prayer "Allah Ackbar" (meaning "God is greater"). Occasionally used mockingly by commenters to poke fun at Islamic fundamentalists who have revealed their incompetence or irrationality.
asshat - An aggressive idiot who insists on expounding foolish opinions (usually of an extreme-leftist nature). Presumably either derived from a combination of "asshole" and "tin foil hat"; or indicating someone who has put his head so far up his own ass that he's wearing it as a hat. First originated in Europe ca. 2000. [First documented use on LGF: 7/18/2002 01:57PM PST] .
demonrats - Insulting term for Democrats, comparing them to both demons and rats. Frequently used by radio host Michael Savage, though it likely did not originate with him. LGFer Malleus Dei claims to have accidentally coined it in a posting he made on Free Republic several years ago. (However, I use my variation more often: Demonicrats. And I might add I started using Demonicrats well before coming across demonrats here or anywhere).
Dhimmi Carter - Insulting nickname for former President Carter, substituting Dhimmi for Jimmy. He earned the nickname by allowing Islamic fundamentalism to gain ascendancy during his watch (in Iran in 1979) and for not seeing through the lies of Arafat during the Arab-Israeli negotiations that led to Carter getting the Nobel Peace Prize.
dhimmi - Ancient Islamic term referring to the second-class citizenship imposed on non-Muslims living in a Muslim state.
dhimmitude - The state of being a dhimmi. Commonly credited as being coined by writer B'at Yeor (no later than 1991, and possibly even earlier).
Eurabia - Sacrastic and pessimistic name for Europe, based on the observation that Muslim immigration and population growth -- coupled with European appeasement of Muslim cultural demands -- will eventually lead the continent to become an Islamic Caliphate. Popularized by writer B'at Yeor in her 2005 book Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis.
FOAD - Fuck Off And Die. Common Internet slang dating back to the early days of the Web in the '90s and BBSs in the '80s.
hat tip - An acknowledgment (by the moderator of a blog or bulletin board) that someone has provided the source or inspiration for a topic of discussion. Its use probably pre-dates the Internet, since tipping hats to acknowledge acquaintances dates back at least to the 19th century.
Hildebeast - Insulting nickname for Hillary Clinton. Coined by talk-show host Neal Boortz during the Clinton administration. (Although I seem to always use Hilabeast. Kooky me.)
Holy Shiite - A sarcastic exclamation of dismay, usually in relation to some event involving Islamic extremists. A combination of "Holy Shit" and "Shiite," a member of the Shia branch of Islam. (Also influenced by "shite," the Cockney spelling and pronounciation of "shit.")
HWSNBN - He Who Shall Not Be Named. A euphemism used for discussing an especially disliked former commenter named Ranbutan without having to actually use his name. After Ranbutan stopped posting on LGF, the phrase He Who Shall Not Be Named was sometimes later used to refer to radio pundit Michael Savage, probably because he frequently complains on air how he is ignored by the media, and because the very mention of his name in most real-world conversations would be enough to start an argument.
Islamofascism/Islamofascist - In general, Islamofascism refers to the notion that Islam is not so much a religion as it is a political ideology that in many ways resembles "fascism" (i.e. the modern common definition of fascism which equates it with totalitarianism, as opposed to the original capital-F Italian-style Fascism). More specifically, Islamofascism is used to describe either the social structure of a society living under strict Islamic shari'a law, or the interpersonal behavior of someone who acts in accordance with true Islam. An Islamofascist can either be an Islamic fundamentalist, or someone who uses violence or bullying tactics to impose Islamic principles on others -- or, more bluntly, a Muslim bigot whose religious beliefs are the source of his bigotry. Radio talkshow host Michael Savage has repeatedly claimed on air that he coined the term "Islamofascist" in his first book, and even offered a reward to anyone who could prove he was wrong. However, the term was first used on LGF at least nine months before Savage's book came out: Robert Crawford 3/2/2002 01:43PM. But in reality "Islamo-fascism" was coined at least a decade earlier; the first known use of the term was on September 8, 1990 by journalist Malise Ruthven in a column about religion for Britain's Independent newspaper, in which Ruthven wrote, ""Nevertheless there is what might be called a 'political problematic' affecting the Muslim world. In contrast to the heirs of some other non-Western traditions, including Hinduism, Shintoism and Buddhism, Islamic societies seem to have found it particularly hard to institutionalise divergences politically: authoritarian government, not to say 'Islamo-fascism', is the rule rather than the exception from Morocco to Pakistan." There may be earlier citations as well.
Islamonazi - A variant of the more common "Islamofascist," but drawing a more direct comparison between Islamic fundamentalism and Nazism in particular, as opposed to the more generalized term "fascism."
joooooos - satirical pronunciation of the word "Jews," in mockery of anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists who blame the Jews for everything. Apparently first used in Usenet groups in the mid-'90s.
Koranimal - Derogatory and somewhat offensive term for Islamic terrorist, or a Muslim who sympathizes with Islamic terrorists. A contraction of "Koran" and "animal." Date of first appearance unknown, though probably predates LGF.
Magic Kingdom - Saudi Arabia; an ironic reference to Disneyland, which in many ways is the exact opposite of Saudi Arabia, where shari'a law ensures that fun is non-existent
moonbat - An unthinking or insane leftist -- in other words, most modern leftists. Moonbat can also be used as an adjective, e.g. a moonbat professor. According to the Wikipedia entry for moonbat, the word was coined in 2002 by the Editor of Samizdata, Perry de Havilland, and was a variation on the name of radical British activist and columnist George Monbiot. Originally, the term "moonbat" was intended to be more politically neutral, and described wackos on the left and the right, but it quickly acquired its current usage of being applied almost exclusively to those on the left. The term also references the moon much in the same way that "lunatic" refers to the insanity-causing powers of the full moon (luna = moon). LGFers occasionally analyze the behavior patterns of various moonbat "species" as if they were actual animals, and even give them satirical Linnaean taxonomical names, such as moonbattus berkeleyensis. According to Charles: "Moonbat was originally coined by Perry at Samizdata, I believe. But LGF probably played a much bigger part in popularizing it." The entry in the Samizdata glossary indicates that Perry originally coined the full phrase "barking moonbat"; apparently "moonbat" is just a subsequent shortened version of "barking moonbat," rather than being a pre-existing term that was lengthened to barking moonbat.
Moonstream Media - Derisive term for the left-leaning media; a conflation of moonbat and mainstream media.
Tin Foil Hat - Referring to a device worn by delusional schizophrenics to protect themselves from mind-control rays; or, more generally, to anyone who believes in an absurd conspiracy theory. Apparently a very old term, possibly dating from the mid-20th century when police would advise crank callers to wear tin-foil hats to defend themselves against psychic attacks.
Zionist hair rays - Magical rays emanating from the hair of attractive Jewish women, with the ability to mesmerize Muslim men and render them sexually enslaved. Based on an Islamic justification of the need for the hijab, which covers women's hair so that it does not inflame the passions of men. Various imams have sermonized about "rays" from women's hair which needed to be avoided, and the notion was exaggerated by female LGFers for satiric purposes.
. . .and my all time favorite, which I NEVER USE but see in use far too often:
RACIST - A statement of surrender during an argument. When two people or disputants are engaged in an acrimonious debate, the side that first says "Racist!" has conceded defeat. Synonymous with saying "Resign" during a chess game, or "Uncle" during a schoolyard fight. Originally, the term was meant to indicate that one side was accusing the other of being racist, but once it was noticed that people only resorted to this tactic when all other arguments had been exhausted, it acquired its new meaning of "indicating one's own concession of defeat."
~Aura
Aura of Arc / On A Clear Day You Can See Forever
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)