I think it’s possible to have attacks on property that would be generally understood to be terrorist in nature (eg if people went around attacking electricity substations, bridges, water treatment plants etc), and it feels like that was generally understood intent of the legal definition
But it didn’t happen in PA case - criminal damage and trespass but nothing that falls within the definition of terrorism. It was the wrong shout from a government more concerned with appearing Reform lite, than thinking of strategy and consequences
Replies
No replies yet