I agree wholeheartedly with Northern Piper on this one. The line by which to differentiate a resistance fighter and a terrorist is the Means and the Target. The line that separates a resistance fighter from a terrorist are the innocents.
A true resistance fighter is systematically fighting for his cause. They will use any and all means available to win. Part of his strategy in this multimedia world is PR. Any bad PR will hurt him, anything good will help him. Being labeled a terrorist will hamstring his cause. To which end, a true resistance fighter will plan to cause as little to no harm to any civilians or innocents. The targets will be specifically hurt thier enemies ability to fight them. They will need to demorialize their enemy and reduce their will to fight. Harming their enemies families and civilians only strengthens their enemies cause and put more fight into them. They eliminate their enemies politicians not their enemies voters. If anything, a resistance fighter will try to persuade their enemies voters to join the resistance.
A terrorist is a criminal. They want only attention to their cause so that they stand out among a hundred other criminals like themselves. They count their victories by the number of bodies not by progress of their cause. Their method is to instill fear because they are ignorant of any other way to influence people. Their targets having any real link to the cause of their oppression is optional at best. At worst it is fabricated based upon their reliance of their followers blind and unquestioning loyalty.
Resistance fighters murder by accident, Terrorist do it on purpose.
Not to conflate the issue, but if resistance fighters/terrorists get a pass on a limited amount of collateral damage just as nations do, do nations that pass beyond a certain limited level of collateral damage then become terrorist nations, particularly if they are deliberately targeting civilians? If that’s the case, then all belligerent nations in WWII were terrorist nations. For that matter, most nations’ counter-insurgency operations would qualify as terrorism.
I’m not trying to cut a pass for non-state organizations to do whatever they will, but insurgency/guerilla warfare is a pretty nasty business. Pretty much nobody would qualify as a resistance movement by a strict Means and Target criterion. Again, if a guerilla force ambushes a government force outside a neutral village and then vanishes, who is to blame for the retribution the government troops take out on the village? The government troops for doing it or the guerillas for hoping that it happens?
Aside from blindingly obvious examples of outright terrorism such as planting bombs on civilian airliners, freedom fighters are people fighting governments you don’t like. Terrorists are fighting governments that you do.
Right now I fear the government of the USA much more than I fear Al Qaeda. The chances of Al Qaeda hurting me are infinitesimal and I have not stopped flying or doing anything else on account of that. OTOH, the US government is everywhere and they have very serious potential of making my life very uncomfortable. Hundreds of individuals have been kidnapped and are still being held by the US government. I am much more terrified of the US government than I am of Al Qaeda. If I take a flight from Europe to New York, the chances I will have to deal with Al Qaeda are infinitesimal and I discount them. OTOH, the chances that I will have to deal with INS agents are 100% and the chances that those agents may be nasty people who can give me a very hard time are quite significant. I am definitely more afraid of the US government than of any so-called terrorist group.
Add to that the many people around the world, including Iraq, who are and have been terrified by the US government. It is a stated policy of the US government to instill fear in those who oppose it.
And yet, I do not consider the US government to be “terrorists”. I just cannot see the simplification of using labels. they add little to the understanding of reality.
If the action of your government is causing you to feel a general fear for your life and safety, not based on your own actions, then I don’t see why the label wouldn’t fit.
However, since the terms “freedom fighter” and “terrorist” are generally applied to non-official organisations or “paramilitary” groups it might be more accurate for you to use one of the many terms coined specifically for referring to governments and official groups, such as “tyranny” or similar.