FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com
Right Intention: Insurgents? I don't think so

Friday, March 25, 2005

Insurgents? I don't think so

Mainstream media glommed on to the term "insurgents" back at the start of the war in Iraq and refuses to let it go, even as their continued use of the word exposes their extreme bias. Let's look at some definitions of the word taken from various dictionaries and encyclopedia entries available on the internet (italics mine):

1. one who uses armed force to rebel against one's own government.
2. someone who is fighting against the government in their own country.
3. a person who takes part in a rebellion in the hope of improving conditions.
4. insurgent, insurrectionist, freedom fighter, rebel -- (a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions)).
5. Wikipedia: An insurgency is an armed rebellion against a constituted authority, by any irregular armed force that rises up against an enforced or established authority, government, or administration. Those carrying out an insurgency are "insurgents." Insurgents conduct sabotage and harassment. Insurgents usually are in opposition to a civil authority or government primarily in the hope of improving their condition.

Notice that many, though not all, definitions include that a) insurgents are rebelling against their own government, or b) they are rebelling in the hope of improving their condition. How does this word describe the terrorists currently operating in Iraq?

Does al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian who videotapes himself beheading non-Iraqi civilians, qualify as an insurgent? Is he fighting against the government of his own country? Or perhaps he is trying to improve his condition? Do the Algerian, Sudanese, Morrocan and Phillipino fighters killed in the recent raid on the terrorist training camp near Samarra qualify? When ordinary Iraqi civilians attack and kill a group of armed people that are about to attack them, do the dead fighters qualify as "insurgents" under these (or any) definitions?

So, let's look at the obvious alternative to describe these people, namely - "terrorists". The definition of terrorist is one who engages in terrorism, which is defined as:

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.

WHAT AM I MISSING? The term "terrorist" fits these dirtbags like a glove. But you have to turn the word "insurgent" inside out and stand it on its head to make it fit. But the extreme liberal bias of the mainstream media encourages the use of poetic license in their description of these people. They intentionally shape people's perceptions by the use of specific language designed to make the actions of these despicable murderers more palatable.

Insurgents my ass.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home