How is it terrorism when they kill soldiers?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't believe that attacking the soldiers of the opposition is an act of terrorism, regardless of the official belligerent status of the attackers. So, though it may be a tad picky, Horetore is right to disagree with calling this a "terrorist attack," even though the paper would have been perfectly correct to refer to it as an attack on those soldiers by a terrorist group (since all accounts note their use of terror tactics in other situations).

If a would-be guerilla attacks the soldiers of one of the powers that be, they may be treated as opposing soldiers or as criminals depending on the specific choice of the power in question. Insurrection may be a "right" but the government can be expected to defend itself vigorously both using the military and the "law."

The Taliban support terrorism, have made terror attacks, and, when they functioned as the ruling regime of Afghanistan, they were brutally repressive and autocratic. One thing they were NOT, however, was supportive of the growth etc. of poppies and heroin. It is possible that they are tacitly accepting these practices now as an expediency in pursuing their war to return to power, but there is little support for them to be viewed as involved in drug trafficking.