Many comments can be made on the title's claim, including many that try to separate and distinguish the concepts of freedom fighters and terrorists. This includes former U.S. President Ronald Reagan who said in a 1986 Radio Address "Freedom fighters do not need to terrorize a population into submission." Without acknowledging clear differences between the two concepts, we may end up arguing clearly unacceptable and undigestible perspectives that still manage to fall into both categories.
Controversial statements such as 'the Jewish Resistance were terrorists' and 'the Nazi government was in the realm of freedom fighting' are clearly fallacious and demonstrate and ignorance towards the underlying meanings and intents of the two differing concepts. Pragmatically, we can identify the contexts a play and recognise or label examples 'correctly'. However, when we look at basic semantic meaning, these claims have a steady basis.
The arguments based from meaning rely heavily on the definitions of both ideas presented below:
Terrorism: 'the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially/usually against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims (they can sometimes be socially, economically motivated).'
Freedom fighter: 'a person who takes part in a revolutionary struggle to achieve a political goal, especially in order to overthrow their government.'
Now the Nazis were undoubtedly revolutionary in their specific political aims, and had obviously achieved this through strategic political and government power use. This excessive power and ideology enforcement has been clearly recognised and viewed according to current contextual culture and morals. Thus we can account for the controversy and disgust it would create if the claim that the Nazis were freedom fighters was suggested or believed today. This is due to the difference in general consensus of morality of modern day thinking and the underlying context of the Nazis and their pro-eugenics view. In fact, without realising the morally striving intent of the Jewish Resistance, we might
Ultimately such a throw away line of 'One Man’s Terrorist Is another Man’s Freedom Fighter' can be defended or argued by demonstrating numerous situations where it can be applied. However these situations rely on a consistent and fair use of both the linguistic conventions pragmatics and semantics, with a lack of consideration regarding the overall moral intent surrounding the acts leading to obvious outliers that manage to fit into the listed definitions whilst clearly feeling 'wrong'. To suggest the Jewish Resistance were terrorists and the Nazi government was freedom fighting is clearly wrong, although arguable. And although One Man’s Terrorist isn't always seen as another Man’s Freedom Fighter, it is evident that One Man’s Terrorist Is Sometimes another Man’s Freedom Fighter.