I didn't want to get into terrorists, but both sides of the conflict are killing innocent people, including women and children. If you tallied them up, I'm not

I didn't want to get into terrorists, but both sides of the conflict are killing innocent people, including women and children. If you tallied them up, I'm not sure which side would have higher numbers. One side can shoot people from the sky, the other uses a more manual approach. If one side is (kind-of) hailed as heroes while the others are called terrorists, how could I pass judgement on one of them, without passing the same judgement on those we tend to call soldiers or commanders? I don't think they are doing something unprecedented - in pretty much all wars atrocities were committed and wars are atrocities themselves. When they don't have other realistic ways to fight back, while not condoning, I cannot judge them. Back to rich folks: If someone kills 10 people for whatever, another provokes a war for profit, killing many thousands, yet another organizes mass addiction for profit, killing many thousands, who has most and least guilt? Please answer. Only one of them is a candidate for hanging in western world. Do you think it's proper?