This is Reuters (yes, I know):
“Although the concluding statement recognised resistance as a legitimate right of the people against occupiers, participants differed on their definition of resistance, a controversy that continued throughout the three-day conference.”
. . . .
“In the end, all participants agreed to request the withdrawal of foreign forces according to a timetable conditional on the building of an Iraqi armed force that was well trained and sufficiently equipped to protect the country, control the security situation and end terrorism.”
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/02fb4b61d54a2c57402b7548073d955e.htm
Everyone is coming away from this thing with a different definition of what was agreed. Typical political maneuvering, which is even more pronounced in some regions of the world. They are trying to come up with a political arrangement of reconciliation.
They may have disagreed on their definition of resistance, but they didn't on their definition of terrorism. Which is more important?