CHICAGO — Three activist defendants were portrayed by prosecutors in Tuesday’s opening statements for the first trial under Illinois terrorism statutes as serious would-be terrorists and their defense team painted them as alcohol-addled mopes who, at worst, contemplated an act of vandalism.

The contrasting portraits of the men, who are accused of plotting Molotov cocktail attacks at the 2012 NATO summit in Chicago, came at the start of what is seen as a major test case for Illinois’ state terrorism laws. Nationally, most terrorism cases are prosecuted in federal court.

The opening statements in the Cook County courtroom were dominated by one question: whether Brian Church, 22, of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.; Jared Chase, 29, of Keene, N.H.; and Brent Vincent Betterly, 25, of Oakland Park, Fla., qualified as terrorists.

Prosecutor Matthew Thruns told jurors there was no doubt.

He walked up to within feet of the defendants and pointed an accusatory finger at each, saying the disgruntled activists had plotted to carry out deadly attacks, including at President Barack Obama’s campaign headquarters, Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s home and police stations.

“(Fire) was going to be their iconic image … that would strike terror on a world stage,” Thruns said, his voice rising. “These defendants wanted to set fire to a system they felt cheated by.”

Church, Chase and Betterly have pleaded not guilty to conspiracy to commit terrorism and other charges. They were arrested days before the summit got under way after an undercover police officer infiltrated their inner circle.

But defense attorneys balked at the idea their clients could be compared to bona fide terrorists.

“If they are terrorists, we can all sleep at night,” said Thomas Durkin, Chase’s lawyer. “Do you know any terrorist who marches in parades?” Later, he called the young men “three goofs.”

Church’s lawyer, Sarah Gelsomino, described her client as naive and prone to wild boasts. During the alleged plotting, she said, he was “nearly constantly drunk out of his mind.”