Hacker News Reader

That's not at all close to textbook terrorism. There's no violence or intimidation. It's not even clear whether this is unlawful.

Intentional destruction of property is considered unlawful in most societies. I'm not sure why you would even question that?

Can it be terrorism when counter-attacking the aggressor?

It's not the agressor, it's general population that happened to live in the same place

You'll note that the operative word "terror" isn't present in "politically-motivated destruction of property."

Terrorism means something specific: it means inflicting terror as an end in itself.

Terrorism doesn't have "terror as an end in itself" either. Almost no one ever has terror as "an end in itself".

Not saying parent's defn is correct, but I don't like this one either.