Posted on 12/31/2004 10:57:45 AM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
Today's Ithaca Journal has a letter to the editor from Miriam Rice, supporting terrorist attacks on U.S. soldiers:
Should this happen, will [the media] call those who fight to defend the independence of the United States "rebels" and "insurgents?" I don't think so. And yet that is exactly how it and other media refer to Iraqi citizens fighting to regain control of their country after an unprovoked attack by the United States. I find these words not only inaccurate but morally offensive. Were the U.S. Army not in Iraq, these people would not be fighting us. It would be more suitable to refer to them as "the Iraqi resistance." If the United States is ever invaded and occupied by a more powerful country ... it is likely that Americans will fight back in self-defense.
Speaking of "more suitable," perhaps it would be more suitable to refer to Ms. Rice as "Baghdad Miriam"....or even "evil, traitorous skank"?
She referred to the terrorists as "Iraqi citizens fighting to regain control of their country after an unprovoked attack by the United States."
OK, that's her definition of the insurgents. And from that you decipher she supports attacks on US soldiers? I think you're reading too much into her opinion of the insurgents and our involvement in Iraq. Terrorism is a tactic, not a nation or a religion. Those who use that tactic are terrorists but they are motivated by their patriotism or religion or something else. The name you give these people doesn't say anything about whether you support or oppose them. She doesn't believe we should be at war with Iraq. That doesn't mean she supports attacks on our soldiers.
Resident's of this festering boil need to be stripped of their citizen ship as enemy aliens of the State and deported.
She also makes reference to to the Iraqis as "fighting back in self defense."
"fighting back" and "self defense" are terms universally recognized to mean justifications for the use of force, even lethal force. Especially when combined with her comments, there can be little doubt that, she is stating, in plain English, that the attacks on US soldier's are justified as "self defense" against "unprovoked" attackers.
LOL is Laugh Out Loud. ;)
"She also makes reference to to the Iraqis as 'fighting back in self defense'."
No, what she said was that if invaded... "it is likely that Americans will fight back in self-defense." That is most certainly what any invaders could and probably would expect from Americans. And we would be justified in our responding attacks... but not necessarily in the eyes of those who invaded us.
In Iraq, we are liberators to some, invaders to others. Those who see us as invaders are "justified" in attacking our soldiers. Just because I understand the enemy's position, doesn't mean I agree with it or support attacks on our soldiers. I certaily expected to be attacked while I was over there. That's why we take guns with us when we invade/occupy.
This woman (Rice) may be an idiot but I still don't see where she supports attacks on our soldiers. So, I respectfully disagree with your assessment.
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.