this is not creative those are the dictionary definitions of the terms insurance and ensurance as properly applied to destruction if you don't understand that fine legitimate criticism i'll write up three man cell and bounty hunter and then it will be easy to understand why ensured and insured are different and why both differ from assured the sentence you quote is absolutely neutral you just aren't familiar with the underlying theory of strike back e g submarines as employed in nuclear warfare guiding the insurance nor likely the three man cell structure that kept the ira from being broken by the british if that's my fault fine i can fix that to explain but ther'es nothing personal or creative about it i'm tired of arguing with you re the other article multi party turns up plenty and there is more use of mutually than mutual if i were to apply your standard i'd be moving mutual assured destruction to talk for not appealing to a reagan voter's biases about its effectiveness and for dropping the ly there is a double standard in your edits if it comes from some us history book like peace movement or 'm a d ' as defined in you like it even if the definition is totally useless in and only of historical interest if it makes any even obvious connection or implication from the language chosen in multiple profession specific terms you consider it somehow non neutral gandhi thinks eye for an eye describes riots death penalty and war all at once but you don't what do you know that gandhi doesn't guess what reality is not neutral current use of terms is slightly more controversial neutrality requires negotiation and some willingness to learn this is your problem not mine you may dislike the writing fine that can be fixed but disregarding fundamental axioms of philosphy with names that recur in multiple phrases or failing to make critical distinctions like 'insurance' versus 'assurance' versus 'ensurance' which are made in one quote by an air force general in an in context quote is just a disservice to the reader if someone comes here to research a topic like mad they want some context beyond history if this is a history book fine it's a history book but that wasn't what it was claimed to be