"Anti-war" = Pro-terror
Merely a more specific instance of "anti-war" = pro-war. "Anti-war" movements have always been warmongers, whether by conscious intent or air-headed fecklessness. In my lifetime, at any rate, they have always and only had the effect of making wars more likely, extending their length, and amplifying their misery.
The rosters of speakers at the "peace" rallies held in Washington, New York and San Francisco before the Iraq war were peppered with literal warmongers: representatives of (at least the "political wings" of) insurgency movements actively fighting wars in places like Columbia, Palestine/Israel, The Philippines, and attempting to foment insurgent war in many other places, e.g. Puerto Rico. No speaker who might oppose these wars -- wars waged against liberal or liberalizing democracies, or against governments friendly to the free world -- would be permitted to approach the microphone at these "peace" rallies. No speaker would ever think of asking the narco-terrorists of Columbia's FARC to put down their arms, let alone the mass-murdering insurgents fighting the democratically elected government of Iraq. In fact anyone supporting the peace process in Palestine (i.e. a two-state solution) was specifically prohibited from speaking at the "peace" rallies.
The "anti-war" crowd only appears to be specifically "pro-terror" because terrorism is a prominent tactic of the anti-democratic, anti-liberal, insurgent warriors and warmongers who they support. Don't be fooled, however, because they'll still support 'em if they jump into tanks and wage "conventional" war, and do still support 'em where they hold the power of the state, as in North Korea, Venezuela, Iraq under Saddam, and etc.
What it comes down to is that they hate -- and desire to see destroyed -- the free and liberal society because it falsifies their Utopian notions of "social justice".