[friend_and_foe]

I would guess, to be as much of a nuisance as possible to those they percieve themselves to be at war with with what limited capabilities they have. They can't possibly believe that this will have significant economic impact so as to hamper their enemies' capability to continue to wage war. This will strike fear into the hearts of no one. But it's damage, and they can do it, so they do.

[XorNot]

So it's the use of destructive measures, which one might describe as "violence", targeted at assets utilized principally by civilians, for the purposes of affecting political change in policy by a government.

Were this to rise in severity from "nuisance", what would you describe that feeling as? What reaction do you think commonly provokes people exposed to negative stimuli into action they don't otherwise want to take?

[friend_and_foe]

No. Man, quit trying to massage the definition to make yourself right.

[XorNot]

That's dodging the question not a rebuttal.

[friend_and_foe]

I don't need to rebut you, you're stretching the definition of "terrorism" to feel right. There's no question to dodge, "so what happens if this activity escalates into terrorism, would that make this terrorism?" The discussion was settled 2 comments ago. "Terrorism" is clearly defined. Breaking things to inconvenience your enemies in warfare is not terrorism.