A country invades, people in the invaded country start blowing things up, etc. in an effort to drive the invaders out. Now, some may call them terrorists.
If they blow up mosques and schools, they are terrorists.
What's so difficult about that? It has nothing to do with why they believe they are doing it.
The ONLY WAY this strategy could work was if the voters of the invading country could be scared into withdrawing. Otherwise the American troops would hardly be weakened when Iraqis kill each other and blow up their mosques.
I might have to explain this in simpler terms.
A man driving a taxi is a "taxi driver". Got it? It's simple.
If somebody invades his country and somebody decides to drive taxi as a means to fight the invaders, that somebody is, can you guess, a _taxi driver_. Because he drives a taxi.
It doesn't have anything to do with WHY he drives the taxi or WHETHER anybody invaded his country, it ONLY has something to do with the ACT of driving a taxi.
As you can see the term "taxi driver" is defined by what the subject does. If he drives a taxi he is a _taxi driver_. Get it?
The same applies to terrorists.
If someone commits acts of terrorism, he is a _terrorist_.
It has NOTHING, but really abolutely NOTHING to do with why he is doing it.
It's impossible really to use terrorism as a means to fight tyranny because terrorism is BY DEFINITION an act of violence NOT against a tyrant or his military but against a civilian population.
Whatever real tyrant there might be to fight, the terrorist is someone who decides to fight innocent civilians instead. That's why terrorism is a crime. Attacking civilians (who are not used a human shields) is a war crime. Terrorism is a strategy that makes use of war crimes. It works because the other side might not, giving the terrorist an advantage.
It's a strategy for fighting asymmetric wars. And it's a crime against humanity. There is no excuse for it and neither does terrorism become non-terrorism depending on the objective of the terrorist.
(Another strategy for fighting asymmetric wars is guerilla warfare, where uniformed rebels fight police and military installations of the tyrant. That strategy is perfectly acceptable according to the laws of war. But a terrorist who attacks school children is not a guerilla. And if a guerilla removes his uniform and hides among innocent civilians he is in breach of the law of war and is committing a war crime.)
Can we get this clear for once?
A "terrorist" is someone who "commits acts of terrorism", REGARDLESS of why he commits them.
A "terrorist" is NOT someone who has a certain objective that I might agree or disagree with.
I realise the media today have an unfortunate tendency to use these words in new ways (for example the BBC rarely refers to someone who murders a Jew as a "terrorist"), but the point here is that the word "terrorist" has a specific meaning which is NOT and NEVER changed by the terrorist's objectives.
The stupid idea about terrorists and freedom fighter is just a means to claim that one's political enemies are just as low as oneself, implying that they also would support terrorists if those terrorists happened to commit acts of terrorism for their benefit.
Unfortunately it is working and you fell for it.
But when some guy blows up a school (that is not used as a base to shoot at him) it has little to do with "perception" when I say that he is a terrorist because WHY he did it doesn't change anything.