Just As I Thought

What’s not in a name

Why, I wonder, does the media use the term “insurgents” in covering Iraq, when the correct term is almost certainly “terrorists?”

in·sur·gent (n-sûrjnt) adj.
1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
2. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

The “insurgents” are hardly a rebellious force, they’re cowardly terrorists who use terrorist tactics such as car bombs, kidnappings, and brutal murders.

ter·ror·ism  (tere-rizem) n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

I can’t decide if they are doing it because “insurgent” is the word the administration uses — wouldn’t it better suit the White House’s purposes if they used “terrorist?” After all, Iraq is now the major front on the war on terrorism, right? Or perhaps the White House is trying to criminalize insurgency itself, knowing that George Bush faces it at home as well.
Let’s call it what it is, folks. The “insurgency” in Iraq is mostly foreign terrorists, who have found a new haven and a new venue for their war against America. Let’s not make them out to be some kind of freedom fighters.

Browse the Archive

Tweets

Browse by Category