I mean bombing government buildings (which is what landed Mandela in prison) is definitely what most people would consider terrorism, or treason, or similar things. Now you can argue that Mandela's actions were justified because Apartheid was evil (and I agree that it was evil) but that's entirely different than arguing that he was just a poor victim of the racist SA government who was imprisoned because he wanted to end Apartheid.
The problem is that people feel morally uncomfortable arguing that it's ok to bomb government buildings (and similar actions) when your cause is just, because that raises all sorts of other moral quandaries that most people don't want to (or refuse to) face. So they pretend like Mandela and his party were perfect angels practicing non-violent resistance like MLK so they can avoid the moral quandaries raised by suggesting that terrorism is ok for a just cause.
Showing restraint with atomic weapons is hardly a pass for lesser violence
The indiscriminate killing that Israel is doing in Gaza and Lebanon is unprecedented since the second World War. Justifying it will normalize civilian casualties in future wars that with be disastrous for everyone.
They were far from it, then again, the ANC campaign killed less than 100 people (excluding their sorta-civil-war with Zulu which isn't what people think about) and ultimately played no role in their victory.
Not according to the Red Cross:
https://www.icrc.org/en/document/protection-hospitals-during...
Otherwise protected targets like hospitals lose their protected status if they're used as a base of military operations or for other similar purposes.
And the US didn't send a spec ops team to get Bin Laden because they were worried about the Geneva Conventions. They sent one because they wanted to make absolutely certain that they got their target (see Bin Laden's escape at Tora Bora in 2001 for an example of this) and because they were operating in Pakistan so showing up with a whole brigade or carpet bombing the compound wouldn't have gone over well with the Pakistani government. It already didn't go over well with just a surgical strike by spec ops, it would have been much worse if it was done by a larger show of force.
Only if you ignore the distinctions between what was essentially a civil war fought by insurgents (like in Apartheid South Africa) and a war between two sovereign powers.
I mean, what you are describing is just war theory, and pretty much every government in the world subscribes to it.
I don't think anybody has any moral quandaries about it when it is THEIR cause. Only when it is someone else's cause. Name one freedom fighter/revolutionary (even a perfectly non-violent one) who is not a 'terrorist' to the regime theyre trying to overthrow. I don't think anyone 'pretends' Mandela was a 'perfect angel' anymore than anyone pretends the founding fathers were beacons of unblemished moral rectitude.