April 25, 2005

Ivy League Student: I Support the Iraqi Resistance 'Unconditionally'

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.--{U.S. Constution, Article. III, Sec. 3}
A Brown University student is speaking out about the war in Iraq. Guess which side she supports? Liz Sperber in Brown University's The College Hill Independent:
UNCONDITIONALLY-that's the way I support the Iraqi Resistance these days. While I do not offer political support to all groups involved in the anti-imperial struggle in Iraq, I work to support its collective purpose: forcing the troops out now. Forcing because the United States won't leave any other way.
Nice. Even though we say we want to leave, and last time I checked by 'we' I mean EVERY POLITICIAN IN THE US, somehow this self-described student of African-Studies knows what our real motivations are.

Check out the three publications she lumps together. At least she gets that part right:

In this vein, it is clear that those reports in the Anglo-American media that cite a decline in insurgent attacks are relying on coalition force press releases. These reports have been directly contradicted by recent articles in Al Jazeera, the Washington Post, and even the New York Times ...
The first step towards adopting such a plan of action is understanding why supporting Iraqi resistance groups is the imperative flipside of our support for US troops-even if we don't know, understand, or agree with the politics of the resistance groups themselves.
Um, excuse me Liz, but there is a word for someone who adheres to the enemies of the United States or gives them aid and comfort: traitor.

Ok, I know I've been pretty fast and loose with that term in the past. But what else do you call an American citizen who wants our side to lose?

We are in a shooting war, dearest. Even though the reason you say you want to support them is so you don't have to go to war, so what? And if my grandfather had wished Hitler a speedy victory before he got drafted?

"You know," says my grandfather, "I may have a few political qualms with Hitler, but I must say that these days I pretty much support him UNCODITIONALLY. I mean, if that's what it takes to drive the Yankee Imperialists out of Europe, so be it."

Oh, and look to the right to see the cartoon that was published with the editorial. Click it for the full size version. Now click here for a comparison. Ms. Sperber's freedom fighters are none other than Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al Qaeda in Iraq. That is a cartoon representation of the murderous group with Eugene Armstrong shortly before they cut off his head.

Ms. Sperber ought to take a gander at this post which shows her allies at work on Mr. Armstrong. Just keep scrolling down Ms. Sperber and then compare that to Abu Ghraib.

It just gets worse from here. This poor girl obviously has been paying attention in class, because she spouts off typical Chomskyian drivel. I'll skip to the treasonous portions:

Thus, while the ostensible savagery of targeting of civilians does help the US government label the freedom fighters of the present as terrorists, the simultaneous media censorship omnipresent throughout the war in Iraq blinds us to the equally if not more savage violence perpetrated by our state against the Iraqi civilians.
She then goes on to repeat the lies of Giuliana Sgrena [see the lies she propogates here for instance] and the blood libel she, other leftists, and the terrorist supporting Arab press (e.g, al Jazeera, al Arabiya) have repeated.
In Fallujah, for instance, where reporters were prohibited for several months beginning in November 2004,
Not true, as we reported here the AP had a photographer embedded with the terrorists in Fallujah. His name is Bilal Huessein.
65 percent of buildings were leveled to the ground and anywhere between 600 to 3,000 civilians were murdered, mostly by carpet-bombing, the increasingly favored technique employed in Iraq as manpower begins to dwindle. All of these conditions must be recognized when we consider our relation to the Iraqi resistance.
For a more thorough examination of left-wing lies about the Fallujah campaign, see this post.

She then goes on about Iraqi self-determination, nowhere indicating that all polls from Iraq indicate that the Iraqis themselves don't want the U.S. to pull out immediately. Pull out, yes, but not now. All polls in the U.S. also agree that we should leave--but not yet.

If you couple the lies that she believes coming out of the left-wing media, than her conclusions are inescapable. If the U.S. really is as bad as al Jazeera reports it to be, then isn't it one's moral obligation to fight the evil Zionist crusador forces?

Rather, if we support the Iraqis right to self-determination, it must be because we identify a common, equal humanity between us; because we recognize that US occupation of Iraqi land and the US-sanctioned torture, rape, murder, and theft are unjust. That, in addition to the plight of our soldiers, which many of them argue is worsening every day, is why we must demand troops out now. For no other reason. Accordingly, since the Iraqi resistance is the force working to regain Iraqi sovereignty, we support them-unconditionally.
That, Ms. Sperber, is treason.

The rest is just nonsense. Ms. Sperber would have us believe that Abu Ghraib was the worst of crimes while every day Geneva Convention violations by 'the resistance' (such as using children as combatents, intentionally murdering non-combatents, using the civilian population as human shields, not wearing uniforms, murdering colloborators, political assasinations, etc) are just minor incidents that are part and parcel to war.

Let me repeat these words: Ms. Sperber, you are a traitor.

Hat tip to John Little who innocently points out that you can contact Ms. Traitor at outnow@brown.edu.

By Rusty Shackleford, Ph.D. at 04:28 PM | Comments |