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 military equipment is absolutely outside any useful definition of terrorism.

I hope no one takes this seriously.

If you're caught sabotaging equipment on a US military installation in many cases they are authorized to use deadly force and you'll be held accountable under the UCMJ. The absolute best outcome is you're designated a terrorist and live to see a prison cell.

Are you sure you want to say it's armed conflict? That makes it legitimate to kill members of Palestine Action.

[flagged]