Sunday, June 26, 2005

Even Al-Jaafari doesn't want to call them insurgents. And notice how he ducks the question which is really just one of those media gotcha questions.
AL-JAAFARI: You cannot compare the time now compared with the time of Saddam Hussein. During Saddam Hussein he killed one million people. 300,000 he killed in a few days during the uprising. He used to put people in acid baths and cut people to pieces. He hacked the poor and started many, many wars. So now the situation in Iraq is much, much better than it was in the time of Saddam Hussein. This is a fact and a Reality.

GREGORY: Vice President Cheney said a few days ago that he thinks the insurgency is in its final throes. Do you agree with that?

AL-JAAFARI: Indeed. It's true. We do not call them insurgents. We call them terrorists. Because that's what they do. They carry out acts of terrorism against innocent people, men, women and children and it is true that with the help of friends and with the support of our friends and with our securing our borders, we will very soon defeat terrorism.

GREGORY: Well, here's a different view. The top military commander in the Persian Gulf actually disagrees with the vice president, saying that the insurgency is as strong today as it was six months ago. This after successful elections in January. This after a political process that's moving toward a constitution in August. Why hasn't the insurgency been brought to its heels?

AL-JAAFARI: I certainly, again, would not call this an insurgency. I would call it a group of terrorists who are out to kill as many people as possible. That is easy to do. Anyone can come in and blow himself up and choose the softest targets possible and carry out acts of terror.

And all of them come from outside Iraq and they admit this freely on TV when they are interrogated.

"Insurgents" only refers to people who have a social base and have support. They carried out either armed uprising or peaceful uprising like Gandhi but these are no such thing. They are terrorists.
I don't know why the media, and even Rumsfeld when he testified last week, persist on calling these people insurgents. Insurgent implies some sort of legitimate movement, not a bunch of guys blowing themselves up so that they can kill as many innocent people as possible. Read the definitions.
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.

a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions)
guerrilla: a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment
in opposition to a civil authority or government

An insurgency is an armed rebellion against a constituted authority, by any irregular armed force that rises up against an enforced or established authority, government, or administration. Those carrying out an insurgency are "insurgents." Insurgents conduct sabotage and harassment. Insurgents usually are in opposition to a civil authority or government primarily in the hope of improving their condition.
Doesn't it seem to be conferring a legitimacy on these terrorists by calling them insurgents. I guess one man's insurgent is another's freedom fighter. Or maybe they're siding with Michael Moore who called them Iraq's Minutemen.