One man's revolutionary, another man's terrorist

Rarely has there been a bloodless revolution; by and large, the pages of history are smeared with the disntegrated mortal remains of un-named, faceless innocent bystanders to armed conflicts between a rigid status quo and an uncertain glorious future.

If the future is the goal, is the revolution a means to that end, and terrorism a misbegotten component of revolutionary thinking?

Or have we already suspended our judgement and taken a biased position when we apply the word "terrorist" to someone who thinks of himself or herself as a soldier for freedom?

Do his ends justify his means?

Do we restrict our definition of terrorist to those who use mass murder and mayhem wantonly to spread fear, rather than those who are driven by a cause that might improve the future for more people than will be sacrificed in the struggle?

Why are there more questions than answers?