Well, that was suspected to begin with but since I made an error with the “occupation” vs “SOFA” versions of the quote from the article I wanted to make sure you had a chance to explain your actual logic.

But I find it telling that you portray yourself as genuinely unable to distinguish between Siun’s use of the term “Iraqi nationalist resistance” in speaking of events in the past and the apparently fabricated term “Iraqi national resistance”… or are you saying that Siun actually used that phrase elsewhere as well?

And somehow this all equates to supporting terrorists?

Terrorists who may well be nationalist resistance fighters… and, if the U.S. is really unlucky, may represent or evolve into a national resistance movement. Again.

A resistance movement is not defined by whether terror tactics are used or not… although the practitioners of such tactics can rightfully be defined as terrorists. A resistance movement is defined by resistance to perceived usurpation and/or occupation.

When they’re blowing each other up then it’s factional fighting up to and including civil war.

When they’re blowing our troops up in order to get them to leave then they are a resistance. Terrorists as well, but still a legitimate use of the term “resistance.”

When they’re blowing each other and our troops up then it’s long past time to get the hell out.

And Odierno has made it clear, repeatedly, that he doesn’t intend that we should leave.

And you wanting to slap Siun with a wingnut “Supports Terrorists!” label just because Siun objects to the continued abuse of our troops as an occupation garrison is disingenuous… and also lame as hell.

And, to the Iraqi people, an occupation garrison is what our troops are and what our troops will be… until they leave for home.

Calling these folks the “national resistance” is hilariously stupid and dishonest.

On other posts, she’s hosted some German guy calling them “freedom fighters” and happily praised that characterization.

I don’t support what we did in iraq or wish our troops to remain there any longer the the agreed-upon time, but rolling over repeatedly for this kind of cowardly, murderous bombing of civilians and at the same time endlessly bitching about Odierno ……

Now then… while the phraseology in the short form is not so exact as the long form can you explain how either version leads to anything remotely resembling support for the terrorists?

http://firedoglake.com/page/2/

This is a statement of fact. The multiple previous statements by Odierno and othe ranking officers regarding a supposed “need” to break or bypass the SOFA are well documented.

Nowhere does Siun even remotely imply support for the bombers… and neither you nor PeorgieTirebiter can give quotes saying as much.

Indeed both of you “quote” Siun with strange mutations… “breaking or sidelining the terms of the SOFA” becomes “continuing attempt to extend the US occupation.” and “Iraqi nationalist resistance” becomes “Iraqi national resistance”

In each case what Siun actually said is distorted into something different. And it ain’t a coincidence, it’s prime wingnutia on display with the meme de jour being “If you don’t support this abuse of our troops by those who command them then you support the terrorists!”

And we, the people of the United States, have made it clear that we’ve had enough of that particular wingnut bullshit.

Y’know… maybe if you weren’t so busy trying to stuff words into other peoples mouths you might, maybe, hear what they are actually saying.

Just thought I’d suggest that.

(and your name has me humming zapmama tunes ;->