"Resistance" and "terrorism" are not, as some people seem to be suggesting, alternatives in any form. The two terms are, quite simply, not in the same
semantic category.
"Resistance" defines a type of conflict in terms of a broad category of aims: it implies an situation of oppression, which may be external (an invader) or internal (an oppressive regime), or some combination of the two. These are descriptions with a strong subjective element, and can and will therefore be disputed by people with differing views on what constitutes oppression in any given situation.
"Terrorism" does not define a type of conflict; it describes a method used in a conflict: the technique of attempting to achieve your aims through frightening enough of your opponent's population into accepting your demands. It would, by such definition, include random killings of civilians (and, arguably, of conscripted combatants), with the primary intention of intimidation and spreading fear but regardless of the means of delivery, but exclude actions which, to adopt that good old Gulf War phrase, cause collateral damage in the attempt to achieve a more conventional military objective. Indeed, terrorism might include actions which were intimidatory but caused no loss of life or injury at all.
There is therefore no inherent dichotomy between terrorism and resistance; a combatant can be a resistance fighter, a terrorist, both or neither.