So why the term "insurgents" at all?
Because that's the most apt label, IMO, at least.
The point of using a word here is to identify a group of people in a news article. The group of people in question is what we think of as the bad guys in Iraq. I suppose the Post could just say "bad guys in Iraq" and maybe we'd know who they're talking about, or maybe we wouldn't. The bad guys could be al Qaeda or they could be Sunnis or they could be criminal gangs or they could be fundamentalists.
To be precise, the bad guys we're talking about are the ones who are rising up against the current authority in Iraq. Those are the ones, the exact ones. So, looking at the definition you offered, "insurgent" is a really apt word. I suppose we could say "rebels" or "guerrillas" but I don't know that either of them would be better. "Insurgent" really is a pretty apt word and there is no better one. That's why we use the term.
Is it just a way to differentiate them from terrorists who,e.g., are targeting multi-national corporations accused of environmental wrongs or violence wrought by animal activivists?
Terrorism is a tactic used by the Iraqi insurgents and by other groups, as you say. If the article said "terrorists," you might have to think for a split second about what in the world the eco-warriors or PETA were doing in Iraq before you realized that, oh, of course, we're talking about the Iraqi insurgents. So why not just make it simple and clear and just say "insurgents"? That is, after, all, the group in question. It clearly identifies them. It may not characterize them as you would prefer, but it clearly identifies them. Which is the point of having labels. |
