Another News Media SNAFU - Insurgents???
Situation Normal All Fucked Up - for those of you who don't know the phrase coined by WWII GIs.
The word "Insurgents" is now being used to describe the terrorists who are attacking, not only our troops but innocent bystanders in Iraq. These so called "insurgents" are not a part of some popular uprising. In fact everyday Iraqis on the streets DO NOT support them and want to get on with their lives under the new system, one way or the other.
One definition for the word is: "a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent"
Now, if somebody really thinks these terrorists are rebels then let's debate that. I guess then we can call UBL a rebel too. But that sort of puts down other rebels throughout history who rebelled for just causes, and who many of us admire. But as far as I'm concerned this is just another example of how the media tries to legitimize one side under the guise of their self-proclaimed objectivity, when their true intentions are rooted in Leftist politics.
I was recently told by a family member, older and far wiser than me, that the same thing happened during the Vietnam War. The media began calling the Vietcong insurgents. Shortly after that they began saying that there was a civil war going on in Vietnam. He went on to say that in fact there was NEVER a civil war and that the media made that up.
So, what do you all think? If these are "rebels" shall we put them up there with the likes of our founding fathers, who were also rebels at one time? Is this how we want to categorize UBL and the tiny minority of folks causing problems for the coalition forces in Iraq?