Terrorist and freedom fighter are two names for the same thing, both depending on your current point of view.
For example, the Boston Tea Party could be seen as an act of terror, destroying property over tax issues, which then, distantly sparked a war.
For example, I am sure that if the rebels in Syria had been in Saudi Arabia instead, the media would have been painting Islamic Extremists all over them.
The Taliban are painted as terrorists too, but look at it from their viewpoint. They are fighting against an enemy that is better equipped, better trained and better everything-ed. What do they have? Terrain advantage, and weapons that were relics during WW2. And they are fighting an invading force the only way that they can, by hiding in their land, and hitting wherever they can. Desperate times.
I don't say I agree with them. Just presenting what might be their point of view.
The point of the matter: Is Invading a country wrong? Yeah. Is attacking civilians wrong? Hell yeah. Is profiting from dragging out a war like that wrong? Yes. Is supporting it wrong? Yeah. Is using media and double-speak to cover up for atrocities committed for and against the so-called 'war on terror'? Of course. Two wrongs don't make a right, but until people get that, they will keep on trying, and using retaliation as an excuse to make billions. They really don't care about the lives lost on both sides.