A Word on Semantics.

We live in strange times and things can get a little confusing especially when writers can't agree on terminology. Take for example the armed thug. Since the beginning of the war on terror, I have seen at least half a dozen titles for the non-state soldier. In the heady early days of the Afghan campaign, I recall constant reports of Northern Alliance "fighters" as they clashed with Taliban "gunmen." Oh, I need to know what separates "insurgents" and "militiamen" from "rebel forces?" Just this week in a report from Karachi, Pakistan,"paramilitary soldiers" were filmed in some nefarious activities and in Somalia, "security forces' had a shoot out with a terrorist leader, a title which may also need to be included here. From a British point of view, didn't that title apply to some of the American Founding Fathers? Wouldn't Ord Wingate's Chindits in WWII qualify as terrorists and gunmen to the Imperial Japanese Army? I need some aspirin.