Probably. It doesn't take much to make it a terrorist act.
Sure it does. It takes the act falling under the definition of terrorism. If we start defining terrorism as "something bad that happens" (not saying you've done that but just creating an example) then the term loses it's usefulness.
Let's define terrorism as being something that fulfills all of these requirements:
1. An attack on civilian infrastructure or civilian people.
2. By a stateless organization
3. Intended to instill fear in the local population.
4. So that population might pressure their respective government or military to behave in a manner which benefits the political, social, or cultural aims of the terrorists.
We don't have that here. We have, at best, 1 and maybe 3, maybe. 2 and 4 are certainly not present. A clueless idiot with a knife and a car, not a terror cell.
What's the difference? Not all senseless murder is terrorism, but some or all terrorism I think qualifies as senseless murder. It doesn't seem to work.
Not senseless. Directed and sometimes successful. The Mujaheddin in Afghanistan managed to evict the Soviet Union. The attacks on 9/11 goaded the USA into two separate invasions and destabilized an absolutely enormous area of the Middle East. Or the campaign the
KLA waged against the Milošević government in the former Yugoslavia.
Terrorism has never been more successful than it is in the modern era. Thanks to non-stop media coverage and the fact politicians immediately reach for the microphone if they think they can get a bit of good publicity, even relatively minor events like this become major international news with multiple world leaders making statements and pundits brought in for comment.
This guy killed more people by falling asleep.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34677791
Why is nobody terrified of rubbish trucks now? Why is nobody discussing the threat of rubbish truck Jihadis and where it will happen next? Why is no nutcase pundit on youtube ranting that rubbish be banned and rubbish truck drivers sent back to where they came from?
Because the story wasn't "sexy" enough for outrage, non-stop news, clickbait, and politicians grabbing some airtime for their popularity or for their cause. If this attack were treated the same as the rubbish truck story we'd not even be thinking about terrorism right now.
The goal is political; the means chosen to achieve it is causing fear by killing random innocent people, but it seems better at strengthening the resolve of people and causing their governments to fight harder. See the wars after 9/11, and ISIS is shrinking last I heard.
ISIS aren't really a terrorist organization. They're not merely committing acts of brutal violence, but they're also providing health coverage, traffic control, jobs and training, running schools, teaching people how to manufacture bombs out of household items, and running an absolutely horrific campaign of suppression that is as equally bad as anything the world has ever seen.
Because of that I'd say they're more of an insurgency or rogue state at this point. I'd say their "statehood", as tenuous as it is, disqualifies them from terrorism. If they really did do anything like this it'd be more of an act of war.
But this is what you call heavy protection? [weird]
