They may have disagreed on their definition of resistance, but they didn't on their definition of terrorism. Which is more important?
It is not so much a question of which is more important, the definition of resistance or that of terrorism. The link in post #27 suggests that there is a lot of intentional ambiguity in the statements which are being written.
Note also Dan Darling's short take in which he quotes extensively from Tony Badran:
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007764.php
"The final compromise formula said that while 'resistance is a legal right for all peoples, however terrorism does not constitute legitimate resistance. As such, we condemn terrorism and the acts of violence and killing and kidnapping that target Iraqis and humane and civil institutions and the government and the national resources and religious places, and request they be fought immediately.'"
"In other words they've condemned everything that's been going on Iraq, without distinguishing one thing as terrorism and another as resistance. While the statement leaves out any reference to foreign troops, it also leaves out any reference to occupation, which in itself neutralizes the matter of legitimate resistance. The addition of the government and state institutions in there by default harken back to Malki's words that it is in fact the government that requested the foreign troops. Therefore, any attack on them is by default an attack on the government's authority."
The reporting, which he notes is "extremely disingenuous" is what is getting most people spun up.