Freedom fighters. Maybe this is a semantic argument but I don't think so. I wouldn't call Robert E. Lee a terrorist either. I'm not trying to make an argument for some "just cause" or moral certitude. I'm just saying there's a difference between war, a popular uprising and Timothy McVeigh. Not that I'm disagreeing with you, akuma587, if your designation of (some of?) the Founding Fathers as terrorists was meant to frame them in a notional context that seems to turn the neocon view back on itself.

In other news, Gallup has Obama back at 50%, McCain at 43%. The road to 270 Electoral Votes seems increasingly more likely to go Obama's way then McCain's way.

No, I totally agree with you, but I am just saying whether or not someone is a terrorist or a freedom fighter depends on what side of the coin you look at many of the times.  Not in every, or maybe even most situations, but enough that the distinction can be arbitrary sometimes.

I tottally don't get what your point is though.  You think it's hypocritical that we feel worse against people trying to attack us... and as bad vs people not attacking us?

I'd argue that the "attacking us" angle would negate hypocrisy on that.

If they attack us on our home soil, then yes, there really is no question about it that they are acting as a terrorist.

But to claim that anyone is a radical and extreme terrorist who attacks foreign soldiers on their soil who have destroyed much of their country and many of the people close to them in an "attempt" to liberate that country is taking a simplistic view of the situation.  I am not saying the people in that foreign country should attack the foreign soldiers, but I can understand why they do it.

I'll just give an example.  Say China helped us dethrone a dictator who had taken control of our government.  But in the process China had destroyed a great deal of our land, and killed millions of innocent Americans while trying to depose the dictator.  And then after that was all over they left troops here for a decade.  Sometimes the troops would accidentally kill a bunch of innocent Americans while trying to root out any of the remaining followers of the dictator.  Do you think Americans would hold it against other Americans who shot some Chinese troops who had killed their families or blew up some of the Chinese troops vehicles in an attempt to get them to leave?  Are they terrorists?

To put this another way ... George W. Bush really wasn't that bad of a president, and the Repbulican controlled house and senate were (also) not that bad, what was bad was the Republican's were offered a mandate which eliminated all checks and balances in the Government. Giving a mandate that is free of checks and balances to the Democrats is going to cause just as many problems as the former Republican mandate produced; they will just be different problems which may or may not be worse.

I would... and yes i'd consider those Americans terrorists. 

Since they would assumingly be keeping the troops here via the support of our now democratically elected government. (Since this is an Iraq paralel.)

If they kept troops here after the government told them to get out.  Then we'd have a problem.

Until then they are no different then our own soldiers accidently killing our own people in the defense of our lands.  Accidents happen sometimes.

Just like in the early 1990s? 

That's perfectly fair, and they are terrorists, I agree.  I can understand why those people would resent the foreign troops though and feel it was their duty to attack them, especially if they felt their very culture was threatened by the occupying foreign force.

I am not condoning terrorism, I just think it is actually an effective means of counter-terrorism to understand why those people would commit terrorist acts in the first place and that bridging the cultural gap can be just as important as suppressing the insurgents in terms of long term recovery and maintaining stability in a country.  Even the military knows that, and if they forget it they are failing to do their job properly.

I wouldn't.  I would think those Americans would be unreasonable.  After all they wouldn't be an occupying force since they would leave whenever our government felt we didn't need their help.  That makes them allied troops stationed in our lands.  Not an occupying force.

I mean... I know why hinkly shot Regean too.. it doesn't really make any difference though.

When the options are "a few extremists hate the army protecting us" or "general chaos, disorder and anarachy throws out country into a third world civil war."

I don't see how it makes a difference.

We killed civilians in Saudi Arabia after the war?

Or do you mean that people died during the war... in Iraq?

Either way... does that mean we can't ever intervene to help our allies?

Had Osama got his way, Saudi Arabia would of got flattened as his group wasn't nearly strong enough to deal with the problem at hand.

Saddam would of took Saudi Arabia... and the middle east would of been a lot angrier about that... and probably would of decried the US and the other western nations for just sitting by when we had the power to stop it.