Is one man's terrorist really another man's freedom fighter?

[kotkinjs1]

Short answer is 'yes,' no difference. It only depends on where you're standing.
- American 18th century colonists: freedom fighters and terrorists
- Israeli Zionists (prior to statehood): freedom fighters and terrorists
- PLO: freedom fighters and terrorists
- Taliban: freedom fighters and terrorists
- Haqqani: freedom fighters and terrorists
- Chechens: freedom fighters and terrorists
- Black Panthers: freedom fighters and terrorists
- IRA: freedom fighters and terrorists
- FLN: freedom fighters and terrorists
- Vietminh: freedom fighters and terrorists
- John Brown: freedom fighter and terrorist

You could obviously go on forever with this list (Bolsheviks, Jacobins, Boko Haram, etc etc etc). Only variable is if you're perspective is from the state or the oppressed population.

Neither are really a 'strategy' per se, only a tactic or a Way. Labels mean nothing...or everything. It just depends on which narrative you're trying to get support for (i.e. the coalition forces in Afghanistan, the Russians in the North Caucasus, the Quetta Shura Taliban, etc). We label terrorism as criminal (except when there's an 'Authorized Use of Military Force' legislation in place, then its war goddamit!) because we're the state so any and all action threatening our monopoly on the use of force is automatically illegal, whether justified or not. All countries are the same. But then it gets back to the Social Contract; populations have a right to rebel if the state doesn't hold up their end of the bargain.

To get a good philosophical baseline to start understanding that question, read Camus' "The Rebel." Why does man rebel? To what end? What means justify those ends and why? It explains a lot without the political baggage we assign to the terminology.

My 2 cents.