I really do appreciate your POV here.. but I think you are clearly mistaking several facts. In general you are implying that a end user knowingly bought a counterfeit item; this is far from the truth.
Let's start with 18 U.S. Code 2332b - (B) Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries
which states, "creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to any other person by destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States or by attempting or conspiring to destroy or damage any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States;"
And the penalty --> "(E) for destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property, by imprisonment for not more than 25 years;"
Now, with that out of the way, let's talk about your 'mythical user' who buys a counterfeit chip. The last time I bought a 'chip' for a computer was in 1987 for my IBM PC portable.. (not a board, not a device, but an actual 'chip').
#1) we are not talking about "a" user, but rather thousands if not millions or even 10's of millions of users
#2) the end user we are addressing here did NOT buy a chip.. they bought a device (computer, laptop, etc.)
#3) even if these millions of users had the knowledge to inspect the chips within the devices they are buying, a visual inspection would have indicated these are legitimate chips.
#4) this is in no way analogous to counterfeit currency - there are built in counter measures, there are tools for detecting them, and if you have homeowners insurance you may be covered for some or all of the loss (in the US).
The reason I feel this is terroristic is if you consider the following thought experiment. A group creates code that disables millions or 10's of millions of computers, computers used in banking, healthcare, traffic management, emergency management, law enforcement -- as well as general users like businesses and individuals with the potential direct economic loss (of the machine(s) in the 100's of millions of dollars, and the potential for additional loss, including loss of life, limb or other property potential worth even more --- would you call that a terroristic ad? I would.
Now hospitals hopefully don't do Windows upgrades live while a patient is in the room (and hopefully) ditto for the other types of uses -- but if a regularly scheduled update reduces the # of machines available, forcing additional triage -- ultimately some people may have delayed treatment, require transfer to other facilities -- its possible this could have negative impact on a number of people's healthcare delivery. We are talking about machines used before, during and post surgery for example.
The same issues could impact all the others; perhaps trivial to some but students could fail courses or have reduced grades because they were not able to complete assignments "on time, etc."