Yeah I can see your point and I've often thought the same thing. It can be a very fine line between freedom fighter and terrorist. During the fall of Berlin at the end of WW2 boys as young as 12 in the Hitler Youth fought to the death to protect Hitler and his Ideology. We would say that these were fanatics indoctrinated by the Nazis but they saw themselves as heroes and freedom fighters.
I think another point we have to take into account is the acts of some of these so-called insurgents. If they are attacking military targets then that could be called resistance however suicide bombings in crowded market places are hardly the acts of a freedom fighter.
BTW that picture has seriously disturbed me and I think we can all agree that for whatever reasons people think they are fighting for war is a pretty disgusting thing

the picture is very disturbing, the soldiers are sent their for a reason...to stop the people you describe as merely defending their homeland from killing each other, how about showing both sides, like a picture of one of the young soldiers injured whilst doing his job, my son was unfortunate to be in the gulf war at 19 yrs old, luckily he came home, disturbed but alive.

Benazir Bhutto was assassinated by a suicide bomber in Pakistan, would you say that was a freedom fighter or a terrorist, was he or she protecting his/her homeland ?
if it gets worse and united nations intervenew will you accuse them of invading the country or will they be trying to stop a bloodbath. Which ever soldiers go in will be just doing their job.

i would call that a sucide bomber, but thats

my point, the united nations are not in Iraq.

its the coaltion of the willing, meaning US,

Briatin and so forth, but to be honest i

oppose the idea of any army watsoever, why

don't the united nations going into kenya or

thailnad or anyother country which its people

are being opporessed. they don't. thats my

point.

what ever you say then