A point I'd overlooked the first time I read this.
The act of an enemy taking a sniper shot at an armed and uniformed military man was not an act of "terrorism."
The definitions have been considerably blurred, with the Left calling people who drive bombs into crowds of kids "insurgents" or "rebels," and the right calling attacks on military targets "terrorism."
Now it's possible that this same sniper also makes car bombs in his spare time, so could qualify under both labels, but that isn't the issue.
Jason makes this point here.