[JumpCrisscross]

> One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter

This is as tropey as it is untrue.

Post WWII, successful revolutionaries rarely terrorised civilians. (Even the Taliban in its fight to retake Afghanistan largely constrained itself to military targets.)

Before WWII, certainly the Napoleonic Wars, total war was the norm—the line between enemy armies, terrorists, criminal gangs and revolutionaries didn’t exist on a practical level because the concept of war crimes, atrocities and crimes against humanity didn’t exist. Raping and pillaging began to be frowned upon in that broad interwar period, which encapsulates the Great War, but that varied significantly from place to place. (In antiquity. exterminating the enemy was almost best practice.)

So no. If you’re using violence as a political tool against non-military targets, you’re not a freedom fighter. You’re a terrorist. The only grey areas are collateral damage and political executions, e.g. purging an old regime. (Even then, it’s a grey line between freedom fighter and war criminal, or revolutionary and brutal autocrat. Not terrorist.)

[tetromino_]

> Even the Taliban in its fight to retake Afghanistan largely constrained itself to military targets.

Are you kidding? If you are a civilian and the Taliban think you were affiliated with or benefiting from the old regime, you were and are a target.

The same applies to any revolutionary or independence movement anywhere in the world. If you are an ordinary poor farmer or a laborer, they will probably leave you alone (might requisition your home or your crops though). But if you are a professor, a policeman, an official, a business owner, a journalist, writer, or artist, or simply a prominent person in some way (in terms of your education, wealth, influence, loudly voiced opinions, religion, ethnic origin, etc.) - watch out, because there is a good chance they'll want to hang you.

[JumpCrisscross]

> If you are a civilian and the Taliban think you were affiliated with or benefiting from the old regime, you were and are a target

Governments brutalising their own citizens aren’t terorrists.

> there is a good chance they'll want to hang you

Fair enough, I suppose I should qualify political violence against non-military targets with indiscriminate. There is a difference between murderous revolutionary regimes and terrorism. (One key element, however, being the word “regime.” Killing professors after taking power isn’t terrorism. Killing professors before seizing control is.)