I don't think political motive is sufficient. Turning off the lights does not by itself instill fear and terror --there are things individuals or groups could tack on that would, of course.
For example OWS was political and caused some property damage [as well as euro climate activists throwing substances at artworks], but I would be loath to classify either terrorism. I guess the action in ATL regarding a police raining facility is domestic terrorism.
Unlawful violence is the other part of that definition. Two components: unlawful violence and a political motive. Not either/or, terrorism requires both.
> OWS was political and caused some property damage
Marginal example. I think most of the property damage was incidental to what they were doing; camping in city parks. Insofar as the property damage was deliberate vandalism, it seems like marginal terrorism. To pick an similar example that seems a lot more clear; if the KKK throws a brick through the window of a business owned by a black person, that's obviously terrorism right?
All in all I think wiktionary's definition is pretty good.
I think we mostly agree, but have some small differences in some aspects.
To elaborate, I don't like the weaseliness of "unlawful" as well as "violence". (to put it bluntly, in some contexts violence is anything form touching a shoulder to punching a nose and beyond --and who decides lawfulness and unlawfulness?) I'm _not_ saying they are undefinable but rather in some contexts their definitions are given great latitude.
For example OWS was political and caused some property damage [as well as euro climate activists throwing substances at artworks], but I would be loath to classify either terrorism. I guess the action in ATL regarding a police raining facility is domestic terrorism.