[heisgone]

One's freedom fighter is someone else terrorist.

[ferbivore]

One's nominal group in power is someone else's genocidal occupier.

[bilbo0s]

Again, this is often the case in civil conflicts (factional fighting). But the subjects of this action are undeniably bad actors. Are the authorities bad actors as well, yes, very likely. But the regional players want the targeted subject's abilities degraded and their options strangled regardless of what the local authority wants. I think the rest of the world is simply lining up behind the regional players. Which was inevitable really.

[watwut]

And frequently the so called terrorist is not a terrorist by any reasonable meaning of that world. Like, frequently they are non violent.

[bilbo0s]

Frequently they are nonviolent.

In this particular case however, they are decidedly violent and dangerous. So why not cut them off?

[antonymoose]

However, in this specific situation, they are definitely terrorists.

[gruez]

"armed resistance movement" sounds pretty close to terrorists to me