One man's terrorist.................

The death of Nelson Mandela prompted a poster on an internet forum I frequent to paraphrase the old saying, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", the implication being that it's purely a matter of perspective.  I'm not so sure.

Surely the definition of a terrorist is one that uses terror as a weapon to achieve their aims, normally political.  Based on this the very act of using terror as a weapon makes them terrorists.  Classic examples of this would be ETA, the IRA and pre-prison Nelson Mandela.  I include Mandela as an intentional provocation to discussion as most regard him as a freedom fighter and hero.  I wonder if it's not possible to be both.

This begs the question, is using terror as a weapon ever justified?  On 6th August 1945 the USA dropped "Little Boy" on Hiroshima and then 3 days later "Fat Man" destroyed Nagasaki killing in total, an estimated, 150 to 240 thousand people.  Japan was terrorised into submission.  The justification for this is that, in the long term, it saved lives.

On 10th April 1998 the Good Friday agreement came into being, effectively ending all official hostilities in Northern Ireland.  After decades of unrest, terror and murder, the people of the province could finally start to rebuild their society.  Convicted terrorists and murderers were released and greeted by many as heroes, some former terrorist leaders have even been elected to public office.

Both of the above scenarios are a matter of historical fact and yet many if not most view the actions of the USA as justified with the same people viewing the actions of the IRA and their ilk as unjustified.  Is this just a matter of what is still fresh in the memory grating on a raw nerve or is there something deeper, a sense of justice, with the USA being seen as heroes vanquishing an oppressor whilst the IRA were underhanded criminals, murdering innocent people in their own beds just because they didn't like the fact that the UK was trying to protect their own citizens?

I suspect the reality of the situation is, as is so often the case, the truth and moral judgements of things are decided by those who write the history books and only when these matters are so distant in the memory as to not arouse personal feelings will history finally be the judge.