Freedom fighters and partisans, not “insurgents” or “terrorists”

We should always refer to those who resist tyranny as freedom fighters or partisans, never as insurgents or terrorists. We should drive out usage of those particular words from the lexicon.<br><br>The mainstream media refer to the Afghans who resisted the Soviet Union as “insurgents.” Then we refer to the same people as freedom fighters when they resisted the Taliban. We also refer to the Ukrainian resistance as terrorists and “separatists” (despite being on the same side as the US and EU). <br><br>They are neither. They are freedom fighters.<br><br>When a people resist tyranny, they are freedom fighters. When a people resist occupation, they are partisans. The French resistance were partisans because they resisted occupation. The Vietnamese who resisted the French were freedom fighters. Those who resisted the Nazis in occupied nations were partisans. <br><br>But we can refer to people who fight against human rights, democracy, or freedom as insurgents or terrorists. Those who fight for ISIS are insurgents because they fight for tyranny. The Jan 6 people were terrorists because they resisted democracy. <br><br>So I hope we can begin using these terms freely to distinguish between those who resist tyranny and those who fight for it.<br><br>Edit: Some people are saying that the term insurgent is neutral and can be applied to any insurgent, regardless of whether they fight for freedom or tyranny. But this is not how the media uses the term. They use insurgent and terrorist interchangeably and often in a derogatory manner. If the term were indeed neutral, they would not use it in a derogatory way. They would simply say “resistance fighters” or “guerrilla fighters” or “insurgents” without any emotional connotation. The media does not do this.