[dogula]

I'll give you some help:

Main Entry: in·sur·gen·cy
Pronunciation: -j&n(t)-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
1 : the quality or state of being insurgent; specifically : a condition of revolt against a government that is less than an organized revolution and that is not recognized as belligerency

Belligerency is being in a state of war. They have been called insurgents all along. It is true that they carry out terrorist attacks, and that they could be described as being terrorists (domestic or otherwise), but they can also be described as being insurgents.

And for your complaint about the connection between Iraq and Al-Qaida, there was no direct connection between the two BEFORE the invasion. We all know that someone from Al-Qaida did meet with a member of the Iraqi government. By a stretch of the logic used to say that Iraq was supporting Al-Quaida before the war I could say that Rumsfeld was involved in Saddam killing his own people.

Anyway, I can accept (sort of) the arguement that we should have invaded Iraq because Saddam is a poop head or something, but to say that Iraq was involved in 9-11 is an outright falsehood.

And back to the thread title, does the label they have make them different? Everyone understands that they are blowing our soldiers up, but mostly they are blowing up Iraqi civilians.

Anyway Iraq != Al-Qaida.