Depends on whose figures you go with, there's no legitimate way to really determine, but the coalition keeps a count of everyone who died directly from an attack. Loosely speaking, around a hundred thousand, almost all from terrorist attacks. That's why most of us don't mind calling all the attackers there terrorists, when your kill ration is about 30 of your own citizens for every 'foriegn opressor' you're pretty far beyond claiming legitimate collateral damage.

Attacks on US troops by terrorists are still acts of terrorism. I agree that targteing an occuying force, even in a fashion which may result in occassional civilian deaths, falls under 'freedom fighter' but the fact that most attacks, especially recently, have been against their own citizens or police with no US troops nearby puts the lie to that. You also have to have some moral justification when claiming freedom fighters. Saddam Hussein and his regime were not one lick better than the Nazis, US occupation has been anything but draconian. Carry the freedom fighter analogy to far and people can justify attack US troops in Haiti. The occupation force spent most of it's time doing patrols and assisting locals. As justifications for violent resistance go, 'let's go blow up a bunch of our guys in the hope we might kill a few of the half-dozen heavily armored soldiers who are delivering food, water, medicine and equipment to our own people' is somewhere down there with cutting peoples tongues out to keep them from using foul language. The reason is highly questionable to begin with and certainly doens't justify the means, so I would say it's perfectly acceptable to justify all attacks in Iraq as terrorist, and certainly any where civilians were present.