Whataboutism.
It can be used to instantly shut down any discussion and win any argument (if only in the eyes of the person using it).
if literally all your arguments and all your discussions depend on your use of whataboutism, the problem and solution lie within yourself: conceive of affirmative arguments supporting your position which aren't logical fallacies, like whataboutism is
It is my father having a love child with the neighbour's wife while I get a ass whopping for sleeping with the maid.
All jokes aside; I believe the western world set a dangerous precedent with the war on terror and the chickens are coming home to roost. Am fearful of what is to come in the future.
Russia's war on Ukraine may end up emboldening nations to act as they please with regards to dissidents wherever they might be and this is a scary world that we moving into.
"Whataboutism" is easy because it's purely syntactic, every time someone says "What about ...", you are allowed to accuse them of it--instead of having to confront, in good faith, an implied accusation of hypocrisy.
It's like Orwellian newspeak, but the new word is less expressive and more likely to confuse the disagreement.
Indeed, whataboutism itself is easy because it's purely distractional: "but Y is a hypocrite!" a defender of X may shout, when the topic is not Y, or their hypocrisy, but X, and what X did.
If your argument is that it was okay for X to do the thing, then you should be able to affirmatively say outright "I think it was okay for X to do the thing", and convincingly explain why, on a moral basis, it was okay for X to do the thing, without bringing anyone else into it.
Otherwise, it's like a child whining "but Stevie took a candy bar!" – maybe, maybe not, but that doesn't mean it's okay for you to take one, even if you think that makes someone a hypocrite
If you harbour terrorists who are wanted by your ostensible partners, don't be surprised if they lose patience and decide to take matters into their own hands.
Does that help?
even children are taught that 2 wrongs don't make a right
I'm not saying you were raised wrong though
imagine if such shouting made murder okay, like a secret, magical incantation any arbitrary thug could recite to immunize oneself from guilt - it's a ridiculous concept when you think about it!
Is an assination ever bilateral or judicial?
This is basically the trolley problem: Do you pull the lever and kill terrorist, or do you let him keep bombing movie theatres and organising hits?
they are always wrong
it doesn't matter if you also did a good thing, it doesn't even matter if the good thing was related: you aren't allowed to do the wrong thing, period, even if you really, really, really want to, even if you think you have a good reason to break the rules and do wrong
and as to your first question, eh, could be for some examples, but it'd be a distraction, as the answer doesn't matter, because the case we're discussing definitely wasn't either one