Yet another propaganda trick in play.

[Arianrhod]

This morning's headline in Stars and Stripes:
"Rebels lob mortars into US HQ in Baghdad".

So, the Iraqis have gone from being "terrorists" and "Ba'ath loyalists" to rebels. Now the administration's codependents want us to believe that these men are attempting to overturn the established order of the US occupation.

These guys are masters of the art.

[Capn Sunshine]

1. It still sounds more logical than "terrorists"

S& S is notoriously honest about things.
The first hint things sucked for the ground level grunts came from S& S.

[Arianrhod]

4. I don't see how calling Iraqi nationals "rebels"

is somehow more "logical" than calling them "loyalists". To me, the latter term makes much more sense. As has been pointed out on here innumerable times, if the US had been invaded, our defense of our homes would not be seen in our eyes as "terrorism" or "rebellion".

The winners always write history. Nowadays, they do it as it's being made. . . .

[LittleApple81]

6. Weren't Americans during the Revolution against England called

"Rebels".

[Arianrhod]

7. hahaha

That's my argument against the Repubs' use of the word "patriot". . . .

[Brian Sweat]

5. A guess you could make a case

for the idea that they are rebelling against the U.S. occupation, but I think resistance or guerillas is more acurate.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

2. they certainly are masters of the art

in fact, what you'll find, is the term describing those attackers in Iraq is constantly in flux. One of the most interesting aspects of the war on terrorism is the definition itself. The definition of terrorist, as you know, is one that is constantly morphing.

[Arianrhod]

3. The power of words is enormous.

Orwell understood this, as evidenced by his painstaking descriptions of Newspeak and Doublethink in 1984. Say something enough times, or in a certain way, or with a certain inflection, and you can make anyone believe anything you want them to.