Muscatine

I'll answer your question by directing you to apply, what I will call hiroad criteria no. 2 to any relevant situation:

from earlier in this thread: "Well, I think it's pretty obvious.  The clue is in the name or title.  A freedom fighter fights for "freedom".  A terrorist does not.  In other words, the outcome sought by the freedom fighter is a society where all are free to express their opinions and actually vote for a change in government at each election cycle.  A terrorist, in many instances, is fighting for just the opposite - a society ruled by a religious or dictatorial despot.   A freedom fighter cannot fight for an outcome that decreases freedom!"

In other words, determine what the goal or desired outcome is, relative to the society they wish to create or re-establish.  Then you will know the answer.  If the society they wish for is not a free society (freedome of speech and expression, freedom of religion, etc.)  then they are not freedom fighters, but merely terrorists. 

 I've taught you how to fish, now get your own. 

By the way, I'm not sure what "examples" you were referring to in your question.

And by the by re: your answer about Obama being kind of in charge:  How do you square that with the Obumbler's own words?

"Fixing oil disaster my responsibility, Obama says"

WASHINGTON – On the defensive more than five weeks into the nation's worst-ever oil spill, President Barak Obama insisted Thursday that his administration, not oil giant BP, was calling the shots in the still-unsuccessful response."

Kind of in charge, mallcontent...ok....I think you will tire of my continual proof that I keep posting....but I will keep posting this until you see the light:

Overview

The Oil Pollution Act (OPA) was signed into law in August 1990, largely in response to rising public concern following the Exxon Valdez incident. The OPA improved the nation's ability to prevent and respond to oil spills by establishing provisions that ***expand the federal government's ability, and provide the money and resources necessary, to respond to oil spills***. The OPA also created the national Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which is available to provide up to one billion dollars per spill incident.

In addition, the OPA provided new requirements for contingency planning both by government and industry. The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) has been expanded in a three-tiered approach: the Federal government is required to direct all public and private response efforts for certain types of spill events; Area Committees -- composed of federal, state, and local government officials -- must develop detailed, location-specific Area Contingency Plans; and owners or operators of vessels and certain facilities that pose a serious threat to the environment must prepare their own Facility Response Plans.

Finally, the OPA increased penalties for regulatory noncompliance, broadened the response and enforcement authorities of the Federal government, and preserved State authority to establish law governing oil spill prevention and response.

--------------------------------------------

I don't think we need any more excuses from the nobama admin! Go ahead barry...just keep worrying about those vicious little old lady teapartiers, those heavily racist cops in Arizona picking on illegals, and those people in Iowa you visted instead of our southern coastline. Everything was put in place for you to handle this spill, barry....and you waited.

apply hiroad criteria #2.  You will get your answer.  Whether you like it or not.