He literally drove into people in the public sphere.
The intended target counts, too. Injuring someone not affiliated with the NSA does not automatically make it terrorism; it just means he was sloppy and adds attempted vehicular manslaughter charges to the list.
And it's not like they build these checkpoints directly on the property boundary; he left the public sphere probably a few hundred feet back down the road.
> He literally drove into people in the public sphere.
The intended target counts, too. Injuring someone not affiliated with the NSA does not automatically make it terrorism; it just means he was sloppy and adds attempted vehicular manslaughter charges to the list.
And it's not like they build these checkpoints directly on the property boundary; he left the public sphere probably a few hundred feet back down the road.
The intended target counts, too
Sure, but we have no idea who was intended. All we know that he struck members of the public.
So, there are indications that it could be terrorism.
> The intended target counts, too
Sure, but we have no idea who was intended. All we know that he struck members of the public.
So, there are *indications* that it could be terrorism.
He literally drove into people in the public sphere. Disagree all you want, it still happened.
We don't have conformation, or proof, of anything.
But we do have indicators. The fact that it happened out front of the NSA indicates a political connection.
He could be anything. Pretty sure I made it real clear that I thought the suspect list was long.
Yes, but they are not exclusive definitions.
If it turns out this was terrorist, that doesn't mean it couldn't also be a rebellion or other.
My original point was that there are indications that it could be terrorism. I never said it was, just refuted the moronic assertion that there were no indicators.
I stand behind that.