This misses the point. If we're being technical, Hamas/MOVE is obviously a terrorist organization. Trying to convince me that they are isn't going to change my position, because I already believe that.

It's just that in-so-far as Hamas/MOVE etc. are terrorist organizations, the CIA/IDF are far larger ones. They inflict terror and use violence for political gain, the only difference is they're the ones in power so they decide who is a terrorist.

That's the problem with the word. The IDF and Hamas are both violent terror groups that shouldn't exist, but Hamas only exists as a result of the IDF's genocidal campaign, and yet we only call Hamas a terror group. It's deeply problematic.

Calling this whataboutism is like responding to the claim "people have a biological urge to reproduce" as a naturalistic fallacy.

You're using the word in sorta the right ballpark (I did make a comparison, e.g a "what about"), however not every time someone says "what about X" are they committing a fallacy.

My entire point was how terrorist is a loaded word, that we only use it to describe one side (the side not in power), even though the technical definition obviously fits organizations in power. Making a comparison to demonstrate my literal only point isn't fallacious.

There were native american terror groups, yet the U.S government that literally genocided millions of native Americans isn't a terror organization, despite their use of terror and violence to achieve political goals. It's a word with clear problematic etymology.