Please explain to me (in detail, ideally), which part wasn't valid. Do you seriously think we're gonna move anywhere, ever, if we don't drop the never ending black and white narratives?

(or are you referring to OP of the comment, I'm in my bed with a pretty serious concussion, so if that's the case, my bad)

As others already pointed out, there isn't really a unified agreed upon definition of terrorism, but the vast majority those definitions overlap, with small differences between them here and there.

The probably most important part of those definitions is that the implementation of terror against your opponents has political motivations. War crimes in general on the other hand mostly don't follow this same philosophy. The only modern day example that theoretically checks both boxes at once is stuff like the Russian terror bombing of civilians (the war crime part), thinking they'll eventually bomb them into total submission and Russia will achieve their political goals (the terrorism part).

I desperately need to know who your plug is, so I accidentally don't end up on the same thing you're clearly on. Seriously man, wtf

That's right. The Soviets for example, are very well known today for spearheading the revolution against that evil far-left Russian Empire thing and we're extremely lucky they ultimately won. Who knows what could've happened to all those small non-Russian minorities in furure decades, if Lenins' movement didn't step in!

(do we do the /s thing here too? lol)

And NO, I'm not a conservative, before someone starts screeching. I'm a centrist trying to appreciate the good parts from both of the extremes, while spitting on the bad. That is my ideology. So here I'm just trying to bring back a bit of that grey almost everyone apparently has completely forgotten existed, making the mainstream discourse almost exclusively black and white.