Not sure why you're getting downvoted. That's literally the Oxford dictionary definition.

https://www.google.com/search?q=define+terrorism

FTFY: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=define+terrorism+oxford

With that definition this is explicitly not terrorism, because it was for money not for political or religious reasons?

Yes. Its an important distinction because they are fundamentally different motives. If the motive is money, various strategies can drive up the cost until the behavior is no longer profitable and the bad actors stop. Religion and ideology are completely different beasts and most strategies that work on profiteers only entrench the others.

Just like how robbing a bank may cause terror to the people in the bank or the neighborhood but it was done for profit not politics.

Wealth is the primary means of expanding ones political influence. It’s a primitive tool like a talking stick to coerce all the other monkeys to do shit for you. Trying to gain money is absolutely political

I think you just defined yelling at someone over money to be terrorism.

You can make a reasonable argument that "nothing is apolitical" but but that's not the definition of political being used when people say what terrorism is.

You are correct; that is the consequence of taking the definition to its ultimate conclusion. Either our definition of terrorism is incomplete or our idea of money is.

You could call it unintentional terrorism I suppose. The timing with what's going on in Ukraine along with Putin's repeated threats makes it look political even if it wasn't. It's entirely possible they just happened to be a group of Russians who picked the wrong target at the wrong time. It's also entirely possible they were doing the Kremlin's work and just not announcing it publicly because that's not really how Putin plays the game.

I have to believe that played a role in the response they received as well.

Money is pure politics. The attacker becoming rich can legally be considered a political goal as the nature of money is political. If they endanger an entity or someone else’s resources to gain that political goal they are guilty of terrorism as they used fear to enact political change.

The mental gymnastics here are incredible.

I'm a frequent "everything is political" commenter myself, but since when is naked self interest through theft a political action?

These are the same types of people that claim "there are no good books" with a smirk on while suggesting books to read on white privilege after just telling you it's not his job to educate you on such matters even though he's literally being paid to sit there and educate you.

The insanity of it all is incomprehensible.

> Money is pure politics.

That only true when right is up and down is left.

Only if you're a Marxist and limit your world view to what you can see through that lens.

No, money is inherently political as a matter of observable fact. It is created by governments and its value is driven by taxation.

> It is created by governments and its value is driven by taxation.

How does taxation drive value? Which taxation? There are governments that don't charge income taxes, there are governments that don't charge property taxes, there are governments that don't charge sales taxes.

This idea comes from Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). Most mainstream economists do not agree with it. But the MMT claim is that at base, people only need USD because it’s how taxes are denominated. The notion is that without the driving force of compelled taxation, no one would use USD or other sovereign currencies. MMT also claims, through similar logic, that a monetary sovereign can print an extreme amount of currency without causing inflation. Which MMT’ers use to justify massive government spending programs.

The idea isn't exclusive to MMT. Critics from across the spectrum recognize that taxation supports the USD. Buttresses such as legal tender laws, the petrodollar system and other barriers serve to support the USD.

Tally sticks are an early example of monetized debt as a taxation medium.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tally_stick

The words “extreme” and “massive” are subjective. MMT claims that the best way for a monetarily sovereign government to maintain aggregate spending at full employment levels is to hire anyone willing to work but who cannot find work in either the private sector or the permanent government sector.

Also note that the work of legal historians such as Christine Desan who are not affiliated with MMT economists concurs with this analysis.

Also note that most mainstream economists do actually agree with the tenets of MMT when individually stated but base their disagreement on a deliberate misreading/misstatement of MMT which they then proceed to criticise.

That taxation is sufficient to drive demand for a currency is not contentious, that it is necessary is unconfirmed.

Simply: money is what you use to pay your taxes.

There are many different types of taxation, but there is no currency that doesn’t derive its value from taxation. People call things like Bitcoin currency but until a sovereign runs their financial system of federal settlement payments on the Bitcoin blockchain it is only a commodity like gold or silver or corn.