You seem to be fumbling around a very basic point of comprehension and literacy.
LEGAL definitions are based upon political power.
LOGICALLY CONSISTENT definitions are based upon logical consistency.
If two different people perform the same action (where "same" explicitly includes acknowledgement of the same behavior with the same goal result)...then by any LOGICALLY CONSISTENT definition, both their actions are terrorist, or both are NOT terrorist. You can't mix and match without reliance upon a magical (and unwarranted) exemption.
LEGAL definitions are CHALK FULL of such nonsense, but I have been -- through this entire time -- pointing to LOGICAL consistency, not the law.
As I pointed out (and you continue to ignore), governments and their designated agents have an obvious political and psychological stake in granting themselves magical unwarranted exemptions in the structure of legal definitions, and thus are extremely UNlikely to draft legal definitions in a way which would obviously result in risking their own conviction.