Comment by jhanschoo
So from what I gather, we are observing either by accident or design a lack of a properly neutral term to designate non-state actors acting against a state's military. Because there is no shortage of material US support for such actors in recent history (I pointed out in another comment the Kurdish resistance in Syria), yet Anglophone media rarely consider US a state sponsor of terrorists.
Yeah, language can be a bit fuzzy around the edges. But when your objective is to overthrow your own government (or win independence for yourself, like the Kurds are), and you're not intentionally targeting civilians, I'd say that's more "rebels" than "terrorists".
If the USS Cole bombers were rebels trying to gain their independence from Yemen (which I don't think is even their stated objective?) and not terrorists they would have been prioritizing Yemeni military targets, not those of uninvolved foreign nations.