Terror or Freedom

As current events illustrate a person may take violent action in order to support a cause.
Probably most of the suicide bombing which we hear of is by people who have allowed themselves to come under the control of fanatics for a formulaic style of religion. Essentially belief based on the arbitrary word of 'god' and even a secular 'god' in which a cause supplants all ethical logic. Free thought in some guise is threatening their cause.
But there are also anarchists, who are also anarchists of popular imagery. Those whose primary directive is freedom, and who will destroy anything that appears to endanger unrestrained liberty.
There may even by a half way house between the two, combining arid causes to arid freedom.
On the altruist wing, an almost impossible conundrum arises as to the point at which passive defence of society may give way to violent defence. A freedom fighter to some, is a terrorist to others. If the danger is from outside that altruist society, in a global society that is anarchistic, there is recourse to perfectly legitimate armed forces. But if the danger is from within, with bigotry and worse gaining ground. Or if the altruist cause is attempting to change an autocratic society. Then, there is the example of what has recently been done in the Middle East, something near to Ghandi's tactics, accepting that civil war may arise. At no point can the altruist simply murder the innocent.