[pessimizer]

>Terrorism doesn't have an accepted definition,

Then it's going to be very difficult to make an argument that Mandela was not a terrorist.

>In the Anglo-Boer war a similar tactic was employed by the Boers to great effect, but I have never heard of anyone referring to their actions during this war as acts of terrorism.

The first hit I get for "Boer terrorism" is: http://www.angloboerwar.com/books/78-stevens-the-complete-hi...

( https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=Boer+terrorism )

Edit:

Sorry about going on about this, but I think that saying people are not terrorists because we agree with them is closely related to saying that people are terrorists because we don't agree with them. If "terrorism" has a meaning, the question of whether Mandela was a terrorist should be answered based on that meaning. If what we really mean to say is that we think Mandela was a great man who improved the lives of millions, we can just say that instead of arguing or insulting each other over semantics.

[moolriaz]

The connotations associated with terrorism are simply too strong to associate with Mandela. People will take great offence at this, no matter what pedantic definition you want to use for it. Regardless, your definition still doesn't account for the fact that Nelson Mandela did not personally do any of these things, or intentionally target innocents.

[peterashford]

Its clear to me at least that any definition of "terrorism" must include the concept of inducing fear in the general populace by means of acts of violence on that population. That's also clearly NOT what Mandela did.