A Question of Semantics

Watchers, listeners and readers of the news over the last few years may have become inreasingly familiar with the word 'insurgent' which, according to dictionary.com is defined as follows:

in·sur·gent adj.

1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
2. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

If Iraqis had risen in revolt against Saddam Hussein, perhaps the term may have been justified in its use. However, that's not what happened and quite how politicians and the media can begin to use the word 'insurgents' to describe those resisting and defending against an invasion by a conquering global power is beyond the realms of rational credulity.

Using the same logic that labels Iraqis as insurgents, if Canada invaded America for harbouring some of the worlds most devestating and prolific international terrorists - however legitimate this charge may be - any American resisting the invasion could also legitimately be described as an insurgent. Somehow, I don't think Americans would see it quite like that.


Update: Someone even complained to the BBC about the inappropriate use of the word 'insurgent'.