I'm sure the Germans would have. Which is the point really; terrorism vs freedom fighter, war vs cou, revolution vs insurgency.

It all depends which side your on.

I get that, which makes me wonder about somebody who claims that Mandela was a terrorist. What does choosing that terminology say about them? What side they are on?

They called themselves terrorists. Terrorisme was the state terror and was not an accusation, but rather a boast by the Jacobins.

edit - oops, as splat points out, I got the wrong end of the stick there by a country mile.

I think Crito was referring to the French Resistance during WWII, not the French Revolution.

Doesn't terrorism have to be again the civilian population? If the French resistance were attacking the German Army or the Vichy Regimes troops, it wouldn't really be terrorism.

They derailed their fair share of trains. There was little shortage of civilian casualties, and if they were operating in Germany, where civilians were more likely to align with the opposition, you can bet your ass there would have been more.