Isn't that something for History to decide?

Wouldn't it depend on how you define 'constituted authority' in this case? If the American appointed and protected government fits that description then the 'insurgent' label seems appropriate, does it not?

"Insurgent" doesn't upset me too much, though I don't think sawing the heads off live people counts as harrasment. On the other hand, words like "the underground" or "the resistance" have much deeper connotations than "terrorist" and generally indicate a sympathy for the aims (if not the methods) of those groups.

It is interesting that each of the definitions and the alternate suggested also imply different sorts and strengths of organization. The underground, for example, is an underground network - a unity of some sort. The characterization of the opposition in Iraq as "insurgency" to me implies less organization and certainly less validity of purpose, asise from the question of methods.

Validity of purpose? A theocratic state that will beat women who don't dress in bags and smash homosexuals heads in with bricks; or a restored Saddam, responsible for millions of deaths in the last three decades?

I would suggest that anyone who suggests these are "valid purposes" has a serious screw loose.

I am commenting as to the meaning of the words whenever used. If one was to describe the insurgency in Iraq as an underground, it would, for example, associate it with the perfectly likeable anti-Nazi undergrounds of WWII. I think, as you clearly do, that it would be wrong to use "underground" in relation to Iraq unless you were a supporter of the insurgents. There clearly are former Ba'athists supporting the insurgency - do they use "underground"? <p>Further, is "underground" valid in the case of Saudi Arabia? Are organized infiltrationistic rebels "insurgents" when we do not like them and an "underground" when we do?

Sorry, then I may have been misunderstanding you.

If a news organization wants to project the attitude of neutrality/objectivity, I think "insurgent" is as good a word as any in the case of Iraq because it has no serious immediate connotations to a person in our culture.

Now, what's the difference between Iraq and Saudi Arabia? In the Saudi case, there would only be two parties involved: the Saudis, which under international law can be assumed to represent to the Saudi people, ha ha ha, and the insurgents/rebels/militants/terrorists.

In Iraq, there are there parties, the American-lead occupation forces, the insurgents/rebels/militants/terrorists and the Iraqi people. If a term was used to suggest the middle group is more reflective of what the Iraqis want than the Americans [under the "they all look they same to me" theory, I assume] we have a problem.

No problem - I am staking my ground within Pajamastan as "Mr. Objectivity" and may not be very skillful in asserting that unknown property so far.<p>It will be interesting to watch the development of an Iraqi civil opposition. It is, of course, the key element in any state holding itself out as democractic (hence my concerns for PEI) but will inevitably one day contain persons who have been defined as Ba'athist, insurgent and perhaps even terrorist, especially if some sort of truth and reconciliation process occurs should things actually get cool there.

Excellent point Alan, and one I hadn't really thought of before now. During the process of setting up a democracy (not an easy task in itself) how does one go about allowing for dissent and an effective but civil government opposition party. If Iraq is governed by an apointed coomittee (and eventually an elected committee) where is the official dissenting voice? does it come from within the committee or from without?

Excellent observation on my excellent point, Ben.

The simple answer to "how does one go about allowing for dissent?" is ... very carefully. I don't necessarily hold dissent as some sort of holy grail as some sorts do these days. If during the setting up the democracy phase, the "dissent" is to set up a theocracy, restore Saddam or to create a government with no relationship to civilized norms, you don't allow it at all. If the dissenters are uninvited foreigners, you don't don't allow it at all.

If they want to feck it all up afterwards, that's their own business at that point.

I'm trying to figure out if you're complimenting me on my point on complimenting me on recognizing your genius. I'll take both.

So, David, countries only have the soveriegn freedom to do as we say? I would think as long as another nation leaves other nations and its populations alone, it is free to develop as it wants. And I would take it that your point "If the dissenters are uninvited foreigners, you don't don't allow it at all" would not apply in Mohawk or Mi'kmaq territory.

Where did I say that? Iraq was neither letting other nations alone nor its own population. However, in a larger sense you are catching what I'm saying: there is a threshold that can be passed where other nation's business becomes our own. Furthermore, I don't think it's too difficult to figure out what those criteria are and I have no problem with doing it in as a preventative measure. I don't pretend there's some sort of symmetry between our civilization and ours and those in the middle east; saying that principals of national sovereignty override almost all other considerations for the purposes of preventing unnecessary wars doesn't impress me in the slightest. Canada is a sovereign nation in the 20th century because of isolation from countries that would take it over -- if we were plunked down next to Iran, this time next year our wives would be wearing sacks and my bones would be rotting anonymously in a pit somewhere.

Your 3rd sentence either distorts or misses what I was saying: while we're (we meaning the Americans) setting up democracy in Iraq, foreign "dissidents" (i.e. mercenaries, thugs and spies) who wish to f*ck up the project don't get a say. Unless your theory is that not only does the ends not justify the means but the wrong means always _invalidate_ the ends.

Where are these Mohawks and Mi'kmaq territories you speak of? The last I noticed, they were subjects of the Crown, in much the same manner I came to be: their ancestors were acclaimed to be so by the British. Tough luck, but no different than how they came to have their territories in the first place.

[We are merely winnowing abstracts. Do we really need to be so linear? I thought that was a great and timely strike to the knees.]

So is the limit to acceptable dissent is violence whether at home or abroad? If not, license to invade is the right of any country. I suppose can live with that as the voice of dissent as much as that of authority has to live and die on its content not the sticks that get pulled out if you call the dissident or authoritarian stoopid. As long as it applies to both dissent and authority, that is.

On the aboriginal territory thing, the combination of the Royal Proclamation 1761 and section, what, 35 of the Constitution denies that we and they are the same interms of soverign interest and title. We will be old men, however, before it is ever made common practice.

The "license to invade" is irrelevancy in case of (broadly speaking) non-Western countries. I'm not going to make any sweeping statement about violence and the right to dissent; there's to many and ifs and buts. Cause matters, methods matter, and whether the dissenters live in a genuine condition of injustice or wish to such a thing matters.

Is the Queen no longer the sovereign of Canada or have I missed something. Yes, it's Canada now; we carried over all rights and obligations, did we not?

It may play out the Queen in the Right of the Mohawk. Right now she is not so much the sovereign as the sovereigns.

|The "license to invade" is irrelevancy in case of (broadly speaking) non-Western countries.

I'm a bit irritated by this discussion, but perhaps I don't grasp the fine details of English: Anyone aware of Hugo de Groot (also known as Hugo Grotius)?

Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law

That is interesting, alfons. To a large degree, David, Ben and I are as much toying with meaning as debating. I am more interested in playing with the word to coax out an idea - as well as poking David with a pointy stick. Does that come across to you who I am guessing speaks English as a second language?

Sometimes I wish that language was just as exact and unambiguous as science...
I think that the definition of "insurgents" is pretty clear, but people tend to bend definitions so it fits their personal opinions and beliefs (not a bad thing perse - it keeps the discussion going).

You get into pushing the limits of meaning that way. The words become flags and tokens symbolizing other meaning and unexamined unshifting personal principles, even mine, that are like biases but not thought out so much as organic. A pop culture medium like this is not going to define anything like that but it can open the lid on it a bit.

Actually, I think "evil bad guys not on our side" is the most accurate definition of "terrorist" in the current context.

In the M.E. it is genrally applied to anyone opposing US or Israeli actions. Beacuse terrorist evokes such strong emotions it is tempting for many partys to use it for purposed of avoiding critical thought, arousing feelings of patriotism and engaging the primitive parts of the brain.

So, to the extent that a word's definition is derived from it's most common usage, I'd stick with the first one you had.

I would like to be able to review usage of "terrorist" pre- and post- 9/11 as I think there would be a noticible shift and perhaps not so much in meaning as by who is using it. It would also be interesting to track who has used it since 9/11 to see if there are shifts there as well.

But I have a job and kids and TV sports to watch...

"Insurgent" is now apparently no longer acceptable terminology in Iraq as Bush has a three-tiered system to describe "the opposition": see here. Rumsfeld has had a thought about this (scroll down).