Damaging property for political ends has been part of the definition in the UK, and I think the US, for decades. I would say the case for targetting military equipment is stronger than for damaging most other things.

> This is simply armed conflict.

Armed conflict by residents and citizens against the state is usually a serious criminal offense everywhere.

> Damaging property for political ends has been part of the definition in the UK, and I think the US, for decades.

Does that include property in Gaza, the West Bank or Lebanon? Because if the people who spray painted something are "terrorists", I want to know what the people who wiped Rafah off the face of the earth are called.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah

Well the definition is flawed, or as the British say, the law is an ass.

Terrorism is widely understood to be the deployment of military force against civilian populations. Of course states do this all the time, but 'state terrorism' is basically dependent on whether politicians in country A align with country B or not; if they don't, they'll call out state abuses in country B as state terrorism, if not they'll say it's law and order.

Regardless of these nuances, extending the definition to include any kind of property damage is just laughably opportunist.

> Armed conflict by residents and citizens against the state is usually a serious criminal offense everywhere.

I think it’s worth considering that you’re much more likely to be a resident or a citizen than a state when you’re deciding how you feel about these kinds of things.

Terrorising means causing terror. I have no real reason to be afraid of Palestine Action, because I am not a military jet.

Just because it's part of the government's definition doesn't mean that it's true. It's in the government's interest to define as much as possible as terrorism.

> Damaging property for political ends

Damaging military equipment is a military end, not a political one. If it were otherwise, then a military attacking a military would definitionally be terrorism. At that point, you've removed the utility of the word "terrorism" from English and made it synonymous with "armed conflict."

Terrorism being done chiefly to change policies by terrorizing people through symbolic acts is a constrained, generally-accepted definition of terrorism.

Contrast with 9/11, where symbols of American capitalism, filled with civilians, were attacked in order to terrify people who have nothing to do with those buildings into supporting changes in policy that hurt the US.

You cannot hide behind convenience.