Case in point, Iran is deemed the biggest "state-sponsor of terrorism" when there's no any basis for it. You've actually had a journo ask those who've claimed as much, and per usual, zero evidence was provided. They've done the same with Syria, and they are trying to do the same with Russia ("terrorist regime"). It's no different than when there are complaints about "human rights," "corruption," etc; these words can only be understood in relation to power.

This is a fair point. The complaints of states about these matters cannot be taken seriously. But it does not follow from that, that there is no such thing as terrorism or corruption.

It is something you can argue about. Suppose

Is invasion of Iraq "in pursuit of political aims"?

It wasn't unlawful.

And lastly, when did the distinction between a civilian and a soldier originate? Were people who, when their countries were conquered in history and they got enslaved, considered "civilians"?

Suppose such categories are modern inventions. Is it bad that these distinctions are made, or not?

From my knowledge of it, it's an entirely modern distinction originating from enlightenment and liberalism, one which I don't consider meaningful, as most people get to experience the policies of the ruling class, which in their nature are far more violent, far more harmful to existence of my people, than any actions deemed "terrorism" by the same ruling class.

You could argue that ruling class policies are worse for the people than terrorism. It does not necessitate you to proclaim that terrorism does not exist, that it is a meme, or that its definition is wholly arbitrary.

Fyi, this wasn't considered terrorism.

Is that black and white photo supposed to mean something, because I don't recognize a thing.