This so-called 'resistance' is nothing more than:
1- Baathy scum fighting to regain their priveliged position at the expense of the Iraqi population. They aim to restore the Baath and even Saddam himself to power. All civilise dpeople are against this.
2- Wahaby scum fighting to gain a foothold in another part of the world after having been thrashed in Afghanistan. They aim to create another Taliban state. All civilised people are against this.

Among the rose-tinted glasses wearing pseudo-leftists in Europe, there is a tendency to regard this 'resistance' as a legitimate expression of the Iraqi people. A legitimate honest resistance has a legitimate program and a realistic view of what may happen when their stated aims are achieved. Anyone who claims not to be a wahaby or a baathist needs to declare this. They also need to state exactly how they plan to deal with the threat of the baath's return to power, and/or the wahaby threat.

Any group that does not have a realistic response for these two scenarios is merely holding the door open for them. Anyone who wants to defend Iraqi freedoms and human rights should take a stand against ALL GROUPS that threaten them, not just imperilaism/globalisation or whatever. Regressive theocracies/ absolutist dictatorships are just as much of a threat to Iraqis liberty and freedom as anything offered by the army of occupation.

Yet another ‘general of the rear’ opining about what Iraqis should and shouldn’t do in their own country. What a laugh.

So presumably then, you reject all international laws and all ideas of basic human rights? Because that is certainly "opining about" what others far way should do, interfering even. But unless you accept the need for these basic standards of decency, then I fail to see how you're any better than the Bush gang.

Though Furat too, is almost certainly wrong on one point. Whilst it would be deliberately naive to ignore the fact that there are former Ba'athists and murderous Islamic fundamentalists in the Iraqi resistance, the chances are there are other elements - such as nationalists who may not have supported Saddam but do oppose occupation by a foreign power or those seeking revenge for their lost loved ones (if the 100,000 casualties estimate is accurate, it would be foolish to pretend that none of their friends and family are taking the exact same course of action we might ourselves find ourselves doing in their position). It's too early to know which elements constitute the majority, Western polls have suggested significant sympathy for DISCRIMINATE resistance (though not against Iraqi police), unfortunately I fear that the more radical elements will sideline the moderates - scum rises as they say.

Furat is however correct in observing that the resistance should be judged both by its methods and aims. If we are to ignore these factors, then it only follows that ALLAWI and the Iraqi National Accord were justified in their terrorist attacks in Iraq in the mid 90's against Saddam. Yet rightfully I don't see people on here supporting these past actions (just the opposite) precisely because his methods were indiscriminate and targeted civilian areas - a cinema, a mosque, newspaper offices etc - AND because his aim was, as it is now, to rid Iraq of Saddam but to replace it with a lite version of Ba'athism, maintaining the strong military and authoritarian streak, catering for the West.

So whilst the discriminate resistance of al Sadr and his ilk may be legitimate in some respects, it is completely undermined by the fact that he wishes to impose a repressive, backward government on Iraqi civilians as evidenced by the harrassment of alcohol sellers etc and stifling of other freedoms. Similarly reports of repression of women in Fallujah by the resistance are equally worrying. To ignore this is to lose track of the end goal, and lunge into sheer anti-americanism - for once validifying those who constantly use that label to dismiss political dissent.