I get the point you are making. A targeted attack on military infrastructure could be considered an act of war.
But I disagree.
He attacked the public, outside the NSA. That makes it a politically motivated attack on the public.
Also, this is highly unlikely to be a state actor. He's probably alone or a part of a known terrorist group.
The definition of terrorism can vary, but usually goes like this:
noun -the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
By that definition, this is terrorism.
And unless there is another state actor, it is not an act of war.
He attacked the public, outside the NSA.
I disagree that he attacked the public. Sure a civilian was injured, but if 'injure civilians' wasn't the goal—and since this happened at the NSA's gates I'm assuming it wasn't—then that just makes the guy collateral damage.
That makes it a politically motivated attack on the public.
We don't have any information about a political motive, either. He could just be a belligerent tweaker that took a wrong turn and didn't appreciate the cop telling him to turn around, like the other incident mentioned at the end of the article.
Also, this is highly unlikely to be a state actor.
...unless there is another state actor, it is not an act of war.
Agreed. So far I am not calling it an act of war, either. There are many varieties of aggression against the government, from rebellion all the way down to resisting arrest.
I disagree that he attacked the public
He literally drove into people in the public sphere. Disagree all you want, it still happened.
We don't have any information about a political motive, either.
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 just be a..
He could be anything. Pretty sure I made it real clear that I thought the suspect list was long.
There are many varieties of aggression
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.
The NSA is a military organization; as far as I am concerned you simply cannot commit an act of 'terrorism' against it.
Even if it were Al-Qaeda or ISIS-sponsored, at most I think it'd fall under the heading of 'irregular warfare'. Assuming it isn't a more pedestrian offense akin to road rage.