US troops in Iraq are fair game says Wingnut!

A few days ago, we learned this from a conference of Middle-East nations about the future of Iraq:

In Egypt, the final communique's attempt to define terrorism omitted any reference to attacks against U.S. or Iraqi forces. Delegates from across the political and religious spectrum said the omission was intentional . They spoke anonymously, saying they feared retribution.

"Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships," the document said.

That means Iraqis think attacking civilians is terrorism; attacking US troops is legitimate.
Are conservative warmongers pissed off about this lack of gratitude from liberated Iraqis? BlackFive isn't.

The native Iraqis who have taken arms against the invaders of their country, and who limit their actions to targeting coalition or Iraqi security forces are not terrorists. They are guerrillas or insurgents, and unless they purposely kill innocents or assist the terrorists they should not be called otherwise. We don't have to agree with their aims, but we need to be fair in how we refer to different groups, we did invade their country and overthrow the government they worked for.

In other words: Let's be sensible, they're justified in their bloodthirst. Wishy-washy political correctness gone wild? Oh, wingnuts! You will always surprise me. What's next, gay marriage for Iraqis?
They try to spin this as a sign of progress, the Sunny insurgency would be trying to set rules for its guerilla war. I thought there was no rules in war. Maybe the rebels should be given white phosphorus and make them promise not to use it on civilians?

Cross-post