Two things to look at when trying to differentiate between these two terms.

1. Are the "resistance" fighters of today actually Iraqi or is there a large contingent of foreigners involved? Does it not seem odd to be "resisting" foreign invaders when you are not even a citizen of that country and are there at the request of rebels to the duly elected government? Yes the terrorists claim to helping their Moslem brothers and if so, why are they killing people in large numbers who have no stake in the fighting? How many coalition soldiers do you see haning around in mosques in large numbers?

2. Were the ""terrorists" of yesteryear in France and other countries allowed to vote to choose who governed them, as has been the case in Iraq? Were they not then defending their own country against outside invaders who were not there at the request of the government? Yes, coalition forces did not enter Iraq at the request of the Hussien government, but by what manner did Husseing obtain power, it certainly was not at the consent of those governed.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

Sorry but I only agree to some points: the Resistance did kill civilians, including some innocent, especially after the liberation.
If somebody was considered a traitor or a collaborator he would be executed without a trial. Sometimes they were not collaborators but it was an easy way to get rid of a neighbour. It happened in the smallest villages. You don't wanted to give you last cow? you were a traitor and you got a bullet: that's the way it was. You had something to hide , shoot the witness and tell he's a traitor. I have many detailled examples. My point is that there are no "nice guys" and that there are no "noble" fighters either. It's dirty work but it had to be done.
Nothing comparable with fanatics who blow themselves up on a market I perfectly agree with you about that.

__________________

Cutting out the civil war aspect in Iraq, what would you call the Ukrainians which were killing other Ukrainians for sididng with the invading force?

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

If the Germans were there to set up an independent Ukraine, and would then leave, what would you call the man who shoot the collaborator a murderer? The fastest wat to get the US our of Iraq is by not killing people. If someone wants the US out of Iraq and so the fight they would be traitors to their own cause.

I agree with Musso. Women and children victims of a car bomb in a market do not tend much to fire back as opposed to a military convoy, so as 'your' freedom fighters practise more of the former to me they look pretty much like indiscriminate mass murderers, freedom fighters my backside.

In WW2 resistance fighters selected military targets or civilian targets with a military use, for instance the French railway system. They did not murder lots of civilians. That role was reserved to the true terrorists, the Germans. Of course this is nuanced by what was happening in Yugoslavia for instance, where the local fighters "also" fought with the Germans, depending, but there conflict had other roots and implications.

__________________
Bah!

Oh so thats what the Bush administration is doing.... setting up an independent Iraq out of the goodness of their hearts? Let me guess and Halliburton is then there for millions of refugees which have lost everything for this unselfish cause?

Surely you are not that naive.

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

I don't want to get drawn into the debates about comparing resistence and terrorism and/or France and Iraq, but in answer to your question Mussolini, I would suggest an examination of the actions of the "Resistence"* and FFF AFTER liberation. Apart from the "mass murders", the answers to your questions would be YES. The immediate post-liberation period was almost an orgy of attacks, extra-judicial killings and violence against both real and perceived collaborators. Neighbours turned on neighbours to get revenge for actions that had nothing to do with the occupation.

Most of these attacks and killings have been swept under the carpet, and apart from the occassional pictures of women having their hair being shaved off, not a lot of coverage has been given to this period.

* I place the word Resistence in quotes because the numbers who claimed to be members of restistance groups after the war was greatly inflated, both those wanting to show that they were against the occupation (when in reality the vast majority of the French were pretty resigned to it), and by the De Gaulle, who wanted to show that France had been active in fighting Germany.

But the French Resistance did 'punish' 'colabouraters,' in Iraq and Afganistan those who cooperate with our forces are viewed as colabourators, thus the Iraqi 'insurgent' or 'terrorist' can justify his actions against locals in the same way the French Resistance did. Similarly, the coalition was responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians during the war itself, does that therefore make us terrorists?

As a final point, consider the speed with which the 'Northern Alliance' went from 'Freedom Fighters' to 'Terrorists.' With this in mind either they suddenly changed their tactics (which they didn't) or we should bite the bullet and admit we haveben supporting terrorists. Interesting to think about.

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

Are you implying that Bush invaded Iraq to funnel billions of dollars into a company that in which held no vested interest? Did he tell Saddam to destroy all of the oil wells in his own country or did he tell Iran to send weapons there to kill the Iraqi people? Or perhaps Al Qaeda really is under the control of Bush so that Halliburton has continued work in Iraq.

Yeah maybe I am naive enough to believe that the Americans went to Iraq to depose a dictator and stay to ensure a working democratic government.

Maybe I am slow but I can not remember when the Northern Alliance was being called terrorists?

No Cheney did, Halliburton is his company, but im sure Bush got something on the side

If I may ask, if the Bush administration is in Iraq for humanitarian reasons to which you suggest, then why are they not in say Africa? Or if they are there to get rid of a dictator who posses a threat to the U.S. or other countries why not Iran or North Korea?............

Bottom line, to suggest that Bush went into Iraq out of the goodness of his heart and not for selfish or misleading reasons, is well............ unfortunate.

And now back on the topic

Overall like I said, I dont think France and Iraq are a very good comparison, the main reason being that France declared war on Germany and Germany won. Iraq never declared war on the U.S., infact the U.S. never declared war on Iraq. I think the invasion of Belarus and Iraq might be a better comparison as Germany never declared war either it just invaded.

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

Cheney got, and gets nothing, he had all of his stock sold or when sold, (selling date was decided by an trust) went to charity. Oh and Congress approves all contracts in Iraq, so that would mean that the House of Reps is in on the deal too?

If we could all know all of the reasons would be awsome. Then again why doesnt anyone besides the US try to take care of Iran, N Korea, Africa, or any other problem for that matter. Oh what the UN is impotent? And while you are thinking about that go and ask Russia and France about the nuclear reactors that they sold to Iraq in the 60s.

Oh and I disagree that France or Belarous and Iraq are good comparisons. But I think you knew that!

I would tend to consider the ones who hide among the innocent and in the mosques in an effort to protect their own hides and thus directly cause the death of those who have no dog in the fight as terrorists. I can not believe in the televison age and with the speed at which al Jazeera would get it on the air, that Coalition forces would intentionally attack innocents. However, the converse has been shown many, many, many times.

That's news to me, also.

I have no disagreement with you any of this, Skipper

Yes, I am. I support fully what is going on there. I think that Bush's largest mistake was underestimating the lack of backbone exhibited by large portions of the non-Moslem world. Whether we like it or not, this part of the fight between the radical followers of Mohammed and the rest of the infidel world.

Does anyone out there know what the first war the nascent United States of America fought following the Revolution?

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

Yes, the War against the Native Americans for the North West Territories. Started in 1785.

I will not argue that. I guess I could have been more specific. First war against an overseas nation.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

The naval war with France, 1798

The insurgency in Iraq is extremely complex and ever changing. It ranges from common street thugs to foreign born al-Qaeda suicide bombers, from Iraqi nationalistic Iraqi groups to Hezbollah and Qods Force advisers. To generalize the whole insurgency and then try to draw conclusions from those generalizations would be unwise. The tactics and goals differ greatly from group to group.

The initial invasion in 2003 and the toppling of Hussein regime gave rise to a number of nationalistic groups. The Sunnis in the western portion of Iraq formed groups such as the 1920s Revolutionary Brigades and The Islamic Army of Iraq. The ultimate goal of these Iraqi nationalistic groups was the withdrawal of U.S. forces and coalition forces to build an Islamic State. Groups such as these turned to al-Qaeda for assistence--but al-Qaeda had a different goal in mind. A large number of citizens and some nationalistic groups have since turned on al-Qaeda due to the strong arm tactics al-Qaeda employs such as beheading sheikhs and murdering innocent civilians. In al-Anbar provice--the orginal headquarters for al-Qaeda--in Salah ad-Din provice, in Diyala province, and elsewhere, Iraqis have been forming coalitions of tribes to fight al-Qaeda. Groups such as the 1920s Revolutionary Brigades who were at one time fighting our forces, have turned to us for help in fighting al-Qaeda. The surge coupled with the rising up of the Iraqi people have beaten back al-Qaeda, leaving them no major population center that is an al-Qaeda safe heaven today.

As far as Shiite groups go, the most powerful is Jaish al-Mahdi (JAM for short or The Mahdi Army in English). JAM is backed by neighboring Iran who helps train, equip, and fund this group. Along with especially powerful IEDs known as Explosively Formed Projectiles (EFPs), anti-aircraft missiles, and other weapons, Iran sends over advisors from Hezbollah and the elite Iranian Qods Force.

Al-Qaeda and "Special Groups" as they are called backed by Iran are fueling much of if not all of the sectarian violence in Iraq today. Between 80 and 90% of all suicide bombings are carried out by foreign born al-Qaeda terrorists. For the most part, these two terrorist groups are the ones conducting the kidnappings, death squads, and suicide bombings.

The British considered the U.S. to be terrorists in 1776, but then too, they had the same attitude about Ghandi, the Israelis, etc. In the case of France under German rule, it was the local people, with the support of a government in exile that was trying to take back their country from a foreign totalitarian rule.

In Iraq, it is a situation where foreigners are killing innocent civilians to establish a totalitarian rule. While the U.S. involvement may have been misguided, I doubt that anyone in their right mind would doubt that if there was a stable government in place, that the U.S. would pull out of Iraq. The odds are that there are more Saudis, Iranians, and other muslim terrorists in Iraq than home grown terrorists. The problem is, once America removed a stable government, no matter how cruel and tyrannical it was, they had a responsibility to not leave until they had established a new stable government. The religeous radicals have no need to be concerned with civilians or future needs. Their terrorism is based on the concept that if they keep killing people, it will force out any stable rule and make it impossible for outside nations to control the chaos. Once the nations that are dedicated to establishing a government have been run off, they can create a civil war that will kill anyone that does not accept their rule. The problem is that the balance of power between the Shiites and Sunnis is of such a nature that no Middle East country can afford to allow it to continue, but they also know that if they get officialy involved, they will have to deal with an out and out battle on their soil.

__________________
Lord, let me be the person my dog thinks I am.

You know when I used to go to bed at night, I always thought that at least Cheney was getting something out of this war. Great! now your telling me that the one man in this country who stood to gain something from this isnt even getting anything himself, what the hell has America gained from Iraq? I have an idea, lets send the rest of the U.S. brave lads to Uganda and stay there until those morons learn how to make space ships, ( as NASA is currently having problems ) at least the U.S. would get something out of that !

What other company other then Halliburton would the U.S. congress approve billions and billions of dollars to?

Actualy it is Europe and NOT the U.S. that is currently in Africa...... Europe is also in the middle east ( Lebanon, Gulf War and currently in Afganistan )not to mention Kossovo... Korea, well thats the U.S.'s problem, any takers on why?

Ok... well then lets not forget the chemical and biological technology given to Iraq in the 8