[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.

[cake_crumb]

I don't believe the incorrect usage of the term "insurgent" is a mistake. It's propaganda. It's redefining terrorists until their actions take in the patina of legitimacy in the collective public consciousness. The mass media did this with the terms "Palestinian refugees", though they never had a country called "Palestine" to flee from, and the continured usage of "Israeli occupation" and "occupied territories" to strengthen the notion of Israel as Zionist conqueror of helpless Arabs.

The media hasn't changed the technique since Hitler's propaganda machine perfected it.