This question already has an answer here:
Jaish-e-Mohammed is a radical group based in Pakistan which operates mainly in Kashmir against India. Its professed goal is to reunite all of Kashmir with Pakistan. It often takes responsibility for attacks conducted against non-civilian Indian forces and politicians (recently an attack this month that killed 40 Indian paramilitary soldiers), and all of the attacks that the group has been implicated with, have been attacks on non-civilians.
There are no accounts of the group performing an attack on any civilian target. As such, why is the group considered a terrorist organisation in the western world, when it seems to better fit the definition of insurgency rather than terror?
Insurgency is a rebellion against authority by belligerents, which is exactly what Jaes-e-Mohammed do. On the other hand, terror is often defined as attacking civilian targets to kill undiscriminately and cause terror and fear amongst the general population: Jaesh have never confessed to conducting such civilian targets nor have any western nation implicated them in such an attack.
Reading the wikipedia article, it offers a lot of circumstantial evidence of what Jaish's "true" intentions are (namely terror), but no solid proof seems to exist that they actually want to commit terror against civilian targets or that they have ever done so previously.
So my question is, has any of the western nations which regard the group as a terror organisation (USA, EU ...) given any reason as to why it is considered a terror organisation specifically and not an insurgency group of radicals?
Note that this is not a question about the morality of Jaesh, but about the formal definition of the actions they take. I am sure we all agree, terrorist or insurgents, that they are people you do not want to run into in a dark ally.