so where are the negative connotations of the word "insurgent"? Just because one uses that word doesn't mean that the US invaders are good in some way.
I've never been a big fan of the "politically correct" language theory, in which the word one uses to describe some phenomenon is almost as important as the phenomenon itself. --JD On 5/12/05, Ian wrote: >>>I think naming the resistance in Iraq an insurgency concedes too much to the Pentagon and White House. Were the North Vietnamese insurgents?<<< me: >> 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.")<< Ian now writes: > 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........< -- Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine
