We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
We looked up “insurgent” in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, which defines it as “a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially: a rebel not recognized as a belligerent.” The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines “insurgent” as “someone who is fighting against the government in their own country.”
We query the use of the term “insurgent” in Iraq, where it is pretty clear (to all but the mainstream media) that the terrorists or jihadists or Islamofascists, or whatever one chooses to call those pigs, are not Iraqis. They are not revolting (in the military sense); they are attacking and they certainly are “recognized as belligerent”; they are not in their own country and are not rebelling against their own government. They cannot therefore be “insurgents”.
We also note that the pigs who bombed the subways in London were legally resident in England, and therefore were truly “insurgents”, but are referred to by the mainstream media as “terrorists” (which was also appropriate). It seems to us that we should henceforth reverse the terminology.
Perhaps the mainstream media themselves are “insurgents” – they seem with great vigor to be “fighting against the government in their own country.
As an aside, we are also deeply disappointed in the Cambridge’s mixing the singular “someone” with the plural “their own”!