Terrorism is a very plastic term, that in the modern era is only applied to non-state actors who act against Western interests. Many, many, many allies of the West would be considered terroristic if they didn't align with Western goals. The Northern Alliance in Afghanistan would be considered terrorist, as well as many of the Syrian and Libyan allies during the Arab Spring. In those instances, they aren't labeled terrorist, but are instead called freedom fighters.
To conflate the main activities of an occupying army with that of a tactical cell or rebel/insurgent and claiming they're the same in nature, really makes me wonder why we would have intelligence agencies or counterterrorist rapid response units. The army would suffice.
This is not a "we're the good guys, and they're the bad guys" propaganda thing. It just defines a very different mode of combat. Nice try, but a terrorist is a subversion of a secret agent, not a soldier.
I'm not claiming they are the same in nature, I'm saying that a group gets the "terrorist" designation based only on it being unaligned with the West, and as a non-state actor.
