I'd argue that terrorism is largely a term to describe an opponent whose tactics go beyond what its adversary's population regards as appropriate... and so the term is mostly intended to marginalize an opponent and paint him and his cause as morally bankrupt.

The term can be used to describe asymmetrical warfare techniques whose objective is more to motivate fear in the target population than to achieve a classic military objective, but if you think about it, the neighbor kid being sent home from the front lines in a body bag also has that effect, albeit a bit more indirectly.

I think by definition an asymmetrical conflict that doesn't result in the weaker side quitting outright must include some sort of different moral standard about things like civilian life, soldier sacrifice, etc.