Look, if I'm a terrorist, the first thing is, I'd prefer the term "freedom fighter." As most of them do. Second, I'd be as pragmatic as possible. There are a few factors in this - how much sympathy can I garner, how much damage can I do, how much security would I have to deal with, and how much exposure can I generate.
For these reasons, my targets will almost certainly be in the United States. The media will provide ample coverage, and depending on my targets, I could garner sympathy. I'm picturing really unsympathetic victims - the Ku Klux Klan comes to mind. Same with people convicted of really unpopular crimes, ones against, say, children. Also people like Westboro. No one too politically charged - basically I want the people who are upset at the acts not to give enough of a shit to do anything.
I also don't picture huge attacks or anything bigger than, say, the Pulse shooting - several coordinated ambush attacks would do the trick. If I wanted to stay anonymous and just make people afraid, I would time the attacks to appear random, possibly throwing in a more sympathetic group to throw off the scent a bit. If I wanted to make it clear that my group existed, I would maintain funding by limiting spending as much as possible and maintaining semi-legal businesses that definitely aren't linked to terrorist activities. And go after no one but assholes. Across economic, racial, social, occupational lines - if you're unsympathetic, you're on our list.
The most successful movements of any time are the ones that are pragmatic and don't get too bogged down in ideology and fanaticism. This is why China survives to this day - another Mao-esque ideologue and it would have been the USSR all over again.