[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

Does he have to say it?

TS can think what he likes. This was a terrorist attack, whichever way you twist it. Every time there's any kind of terrorist attack there're always people saying yes, but, was it technically a terrorist attack?

I often get castigated on here for using my own experience to form opinions - although I always thought that was the best way to form opinions - but I'm going to say this: I work in international law, for the government, mostly in the middle east. I can confirm... it was a terrorist attack. Obviously, anyone can disagree with that... but experience tells me right.

Like I said obviously it is "technically" a terrorist attack, because all attacks designed to cause fear and panic are terrorism by definition, but I don't know why there's such a backlash against the idea that there's a huge - and important - distinction between "lone wolf" impulse-based attacks and larger scale, networked, planned terrorism. You HAVE to assume a knife attack is the former, as a planned attack would source more harmful weaponry? It's not hard to buy a gun or build a basic bomb, as we know.

The reason "careful use" of the word terrorism is important is that "terrorism" has become synonymous with planned attacks, ISIS, etc. and thus as soon as the media starts reporting "terrorism"... the public mindset latches onto the idea of a network of extremists plotting elaborate attacks. When it's far more likely that this individual had no such connections. Does it mean he isn't a religious fundamentalist? Of course not, and personally, I would argue that ALL fundamentalists and dogmatists are mentally unsound, but that's not really particularly relevant because none of this is about excusing the acts of the perpetrator; just keeping the risk perception of the public realistic, reasonable and accurate... instead of furthering the most basic goal of terrorism by spreading media hysteria and fear. It's in the name, for goshness sakes.