Freedom Fighter or Terrorist. Any difference?

I was looking at the thread about Nelson Mandela, from another site and I notice a quite a few references to terrorism. I wanted to get down to the ground level on this and hear what others think about it.
I personally think that people use what they have to to stress their issues. Some are religious and some are political. I don’t really think that we will ever know the entire tale of people like Mr. Mandela, who lived in a world where we can only imagine what it was like.
Who is actually innocent when hatred and bigotry are ingrained in the society you live in. Could apartheid have existed without the acceptance of the society that it was a part of? Even those who convinced themselves that the perpetuation of such discriminatory laws were guaranteed only because they had been around for such a long time?
Complacency in the face of tyranny is a death of spirit. No matter how long the body lives, it can never fully be prosperous if shackled to the opinions of others.
Is fighting for that any more noble than fighting for God, when so many have always placed freedom to be themselves as their own personal God?

I think it depends on who is observing.

You’re a freedom fighter when Ronald Reagan invites you to the White House and a terrorist when he wants to bomb you.
But seriously, I think you’re getting to the question of, if you are fighting for freedom, what do you want to be free to do? If you want to be free to keep women as slaves, then you’re a terrorist. There is still a huge gray area. People have extensively manipulated their systems to get elected and implemented terrible policies without being declared a terrorist state. Some say the US fits that definition.

If the question has to be asked, there is apparently a conflict. In any conflict I’d guess that each side labels their personnel as freedom fighters and the other side as terrorists.