I'm perfectly capable of thinking that they're both terrorists and freedom fighters.

It's not just that they "can" be both, it's more that they "have to" be both.

"Freedom fighter" is a term reserved for the underdog, the one who can't use sheer military power to terrorize a whole region (like a couple US Carrier Strike Groups with nukes) or some surrounding countries (like a US funded Israeli military with some nukes of their own). Established democracies and recognized states, can use their "military" to terrorize a whole population by just threatening to bomb the living shit out of the civilians, while "freedom fighters" can only terrorize through surprise attacks and extreme brutality... aka, by being "terrorists".

Bottom line: all "freedom fighters" need to be "terrorists", otherwise they'd be called "a military".

somebody who goes to "freedom fighter" as their first noun for them, that's kind of a red flag.

That's a bit harsh, what if they understand the two are synonyms? 🤷