Upon analysis there are significant distinctions between combatant
classifications. The combatant allied to a cause is not required to explain
individual or collective actions, there are few, if any methods considered outside
boundary, and there is no measure of violence considered excessive.  . There
exists a sense of liberty to 'dance as if no one is watching', and 'fight as if all is
considered fair'.

Those who would terrorize engage in actions for which they will never
be required to apologize yet there is conviction that it is a war more
legitimately qualified as ‘declared’ then anything done in response.
Moreover, these violent acts are seen by those who perpetrate as
merely a response to provocation.
It has been said (over and over) that "one mans terrorist is another
mans freedom fighter"- Yatch!!.  Let’s imagine we are hearing this
phrase for the first time…what does it really mean?  
An enemy response in retaliation is not seen as
retaliation, it is seen as the only legitimate response
serving the cause of 'vanquished evil',  And though there
may be little in numbers and resources, righteous
sacrifice will surely be rewarded by a deity  fully aware of
all who suffered at the hands of grossly disparate mortal
We define terrorism as the work of evil yet our perceived enemies
believe with equal conviction that it is they who are fighting to rid
the world of iniquity. Do the actions of either side meet the criteria
of evil?  If we are convinced an enemy must be killed, they must
surely be evil! Right?
Associated with this adage is an implied moral equivalence that the
militant associated with a cause is similarly virtuous to the conscripted
soldier of a sovereign nation. If a willingness to sacrifice one's own life
represents an identical outcome to dissimilar contributing factors can it
truly be argued one faction is more virtuous relative to the other?