Isn’t one person’s terrorist another person’s freedom fighter?

No; a freedom fighter fights the government while a terrorist indiscriminately kills civilians. Its why I cringe when people call Mandela, who ordered attacks on taxi lines, markets, etc (and against mainly black people) a freedom fighter.

Thats perfectly true. But there is usually a clear difference between the two. A Terrorist (9/11) hits at the general public. Planting bombs where civilians are likely to be killed.They dont care.

A freedom fighter (The French resistance during ww2 ) attacks the millitary of a country that has occupied your country. If a civilian is killed its by accident.

I understand Mandelas African National Union came under the second of these groups.

'Terrorism' usually involves the 'dreamy' and 'mystical' aspects of politics. The aims of terrorists are usually unrealistic and rejected by mainstream political parties. To some people Lee Harvey Oswald was a hero and freedom fighter, most Americans see him as a common criminal. Ulrike Meinhof was a heroin to some people, to the German police she was a irrational murderer.

Terrorism has it's allure to some. Had Lee Oswald lived and stood trial, he would have relished lecturing the U.S. Government on it's dispute with Cuba just as Ulrika Meinhof lectured the German Authorities over 'Imperialism' and 'Global Capitalism'.

When we blow up and shoot others so they can be free it tends terrorize the locals, but we brought them free elections and free speech to call us terrorists for killing their people. However, if you kill without provocation I do not think you can be a freedom fighter, then you are just a terrorist like Bin Laden.

Whether they're one or the other, they are usually a pawn (proxy) of a high power. Both sides may be pawns of special interests. In simple terms, the world is not black and white.

Yes. That philosophical enough for ya?

That's a good question, I was wondering the same thing myself