Yes, that is basically what I am doing.

Was that not clear?

I am attempting to point out the given definition of terrorism is quite broad, and easily interpreted subjectively depending on your biases.

Burn down a Tesla dealership?

Terrorism.

Boston Tea Party?

Terrorism.

Jan 6th?

Terrorism.

Bay of Pigs Invasion?

Terrorism, more technically ‘State Terrorism’.

Many, many acts of resistance groups in German occupied Europe during WW2?

Also Terrorism.

Order an extrajudicial assasination? Order or carry out mass arrests without proper warrants or authority?

Plant false evidence or fabricate some kind of ‘suspicious behavior’ to justify an arrest or detainment or use of force or conviction, motivated by a political/religious/ethic/etc bias?

Again, Terrorism, though more specifically that is ‘State Terrorism’.

Saying “I am going to kill [very important political figure]”?

Terrorism.

Pilot a ship on the sea to harass dragnet fishing boats or whalers?

Terrorism.

Any protest group that has ‘illegally’ gathered in an area or building without a permit, where a single person threw a punch or resisted arrest?

Again, also terrorism.

… All of these things either are or could easily be interpreted to be both violent and criminal acts, with either a motivation or desired effect being biased toward some specific group of people.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

You may note that precisely defining terrorism is actually somewhat difficult, as indicated by the wide range of different definitions used by different groups and at different times, and is actually the subject of a whole lot of academic and legal debate, with slight but very significant differences over time and place/jurisdiction.