[cake_crumb]

Yeah, yeah, "amid rising violence...not enough troops.....untrained security forces....mistakes made....Quagmire...impeach...." etc.

I would like all reporters to explain to me how Jordanian, Syrian, Egyptian, Pali, Saudi and Iranian invadors of Iraq, who - it's confirmed - have murdered more Iraqis than coalition forces, can be called "insurgents"

[the anti-liberal]

Yes, I agree- the term implies legitimacy and 'justness', as this definition illustrates:

"Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856)"

INSURGENT. One who is concerned in an insurrection. He differs from a rebel 
in this, that rebel is always understood in a bad sense, or one who unjustly 
opposes the constituted authorities; insurgent may be one who justly opposes 
the tyranny of constituted authorities. The colonists who opposed the 
tyranny of the English government were insurgents, not rebels.


I agree that the term is repeatedly misapplied in the case of terrorism, either in Iraq or elsewhere, as the essence of the activity is essentially the same, be it in London, Spain, Iraq, or Saudi Arabia- to make a distinction between that activity in Iraq and that same activity elsewhere is, IMO, mistaken.