Of course it is terrorism, if you want to argue whether or not its supportable that's fine, but as a series of crimes they're terrorist actions.
At least dissident republicans are less moralistic about their actions and how you refer to them, anarchist remain an overly sensitive bunch of souls.
only under tony blair's bullshit definition of terrorism that includes pretty much any form of politically motivated property damage as terrorism.
Under the common understanding of the word, it's nothing of the sort - nobody has been terrorised, nobody has been hurt, nothing other than a few bank balances of corporations or state agencies have actually been damaged*.
A few people have been inconvenienced - that does not amount to terrorism, and you saying it does in the press simply helps to justify the government position on redefining terrorism to allow them to use the most draconian legislation against anyone who protests using methods that are a bit more confrontational than A-B marches.
This should be treated as criminal damage / arson, nothing more - why does it justify the potential of extended periods of detention without trial on arrest, and all the powers granted for dealing with actual terrorists who aim to blow as many people up as they can just because the motivation is political?
* well, maybe a fair few subbies who risked leaving their tools on site overnight
ps this is a post against the misuse of the anti-terrorism legislation, and it's justification in the public mindset through articles and headlines like yours, rather than a post in support of these actions specifically. Property damage is not the same as deliberately setting out to kill and maim people, and this difference should be clearly spelled out at all opportunities by anyone in the press who likes to think of themselves as not being part of the problem / different to the daily mail hacks IMO.
Steve Brodie 
