On 5/13/05, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/12/05, Autoplectic wrote: > > I think naming the resistance in Iraq an insurgency concedes too much > > to the Pentagon and White House. Were the North Vietnamese insurgents? > > El dictionario (http://dict.die.net) defines "insurgent" as: > >adj : in opposition to a civil authority or government [syn: > seditious, subversive] > >n 1: a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the > constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions) > [syn: insurrectionist, freedom fighter, rebel] > >2: a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force > by sabotage and harassment [syn: guerrilla, guerilla, irregular]< > > except for the bit about "constituted authority," this definition -- > which represents the judgement by the dictionary-writers about the > most common usages -- seems to fit the opposition groups in Iraq. It's > not like the word "insurgents" involves negative (or positive) value > judgements. (Hey, it's better than the increasingly common word > "terrorists.") > > The North Vietnamese were very different from the Iraqi anti-US forces > (among other things, showing much more unity and organization) so I > don't think what we call them is very relevant.
--------------- Seems to me that they want the US Army, which is there illegally, and all the political forces that have been established since the invasion, to be dismantled; to call them insurgents is to attempt to settle by discursive fiat that the institutions in Iraq are a legitimate government, which is precisely at issue. So naming what's going on is a political issue which does involve judgement. Cutting the USG any slack on language is a big mistake, given no one in the US is about to contest their lies by extra-discursive means........
