Terrorism and legitimate violence against combatants can and must be distinguished. My problem with Doug's way of speaking about "the Iraqi resistance" is that he refuses to clearly and consistently make such a distinction, e.g., his passing off of a terrorist action of an Al-Qaeda-linked group as what characterizes "the Iraqi resistance" as such: <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20061113/022972.html>.
The first thing to do is to distinguish (A) shadowy groups like Al Qaeda, lacking in mass support, that specialize in terrorism and (B) political organizations, like Hamas and Hizballah, that have organized bases in masses, have political programs appealing to working masses of their countries (whether or not they appeal to us), include women among members, and employ tactics like holding mass demonstrations and providing social services in which masses can participate. Both Hamas and Hizballah have sometimes committed war crimes, as defined by the Geneva Conventions and other relevant international laws, just as (C) secular nationalist, socialist, anarchist, and other movements have, but war crimes are not their raison d'etre in (B) or (C). The difference between (A) on one hand and (B) and (C) on the other hand should be clear. The latter kind of political organizations can and should be defended, even while condemning war crimes they commit, but the former can not and should not be. Conflating these two different kinds of organization only helps imperialists. -- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>