Gardener said:
I would venture to say that you may wish to add yourself to those for whom you extend these concerns as to terminology. People who hold positions such as this (if indeed, you are accurately stating it) may be antiwar and may be from the left, but they are not liberal. Liberality is based upon liberal political principles, whereas these attitudes arise from the dogmatic, authoritarian left as typified by Chomsky, Cole, Counterpunch, ANSWER et al who are leftists, but not liberals.
MOST American liberals are leftists.
Those that are not are usually some form of libertarian.
As to whether people should be called insurgents or terrorists, specifically, that would depend upon their targets. If they select civilian targets, their actions are terrorist in nature, while if they select military targets, they could be considered insurgents.
Being an "insurgent" doesn't, in and of itself, grant you any legitimacy.
IF you are an 'insurgent' acting under the 'right to resistance', then, perhaps your actions are justifiable.
BUT
A "right of resistance," under that principle, exists only under certain narrow conditions. The animals who burn bodies and leave them on bridges, and perform brutal acts of horrific terror on camera, fulfill exactly none of them, neither in condition, behavior, or standing to do so.
For a right of resistance to apply, there have to be certain conditions. First and foremost, all non-violent avenues of civil redress must be abrogated. This is not the case in Iraq; there is an elected government with functioning courts and a representative, elected parliament. There is freedom of the press. There is a constitution approved by the people which guarantees these things.
Second, a right of resistance can only be claimed by the actual people of a nation. When critics of Bush think they can score points that way, they love to broadcast that most of the "insurgency" is of foreign origin.
Third, the rebellion must be open, authorized by representatives of the people (even if they meet outside the offices of the government in charge, as was the case with the Continental Congress) . . . and must obey the accepted rules of warfare.
This sludge in Iraq meets none of these, and in fact seek to impose exactly the kind of "law" which would justify a right of rebellion.