when a neocon uses a word
neocons, like all political bullshitters, anchor their indefensible crap in language distortion. any rational observer knows this, yet the crazy “let’s push this beyond the limit” choices of the nitwits can sometimes surprise regardless. wasn’t until this morning, arguing with some in-denial YouTube clod, that i took a serious look at a major dictionary’s definition of insurgent. what. the. fuck.
1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
taking the general definition (up to the especially bit), apart from the implications in the word “revolts”, which would tend to indicate internal, not external, opposition, that’s a description of the US invasion. for those who would bicker beyond the word “revolts”, it assigns to them an impossible task: defining what composes “civil authority or an established government”. beautiful. that might be good for a few hours of watching some asshole’s inadequate brain spin into shreds.
October 7th, 2007 at 10:51
excellent. especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent takes it further when one considers the lingo “war on terror”. if an insurgent by definition is NOT in a state of war, aggressive or hostile, then it exposes this firaqsco for its hyporcracy via semantics alone.
p.s. go see “across the universe” thumbs up for anti-war, music & trippiness.
October 7th, 2007 at 11:45
never hoid of it, but since i’m a fan of evan wood and i happen to be at a shopping center where it’s showing in 15 minutes i’ll check it out.
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:46
[...] on “insurgent”: when a neocon uses a word [...]