I think it's a very appropriate nitpick in this case since it seems like the perpetrators wanted to use violence to call attention to the electrical grid's vulnerability more than actually damage/disrupt it. It seems most likely to me that the goal of the attack was to spur the very conversation we're having.
I'm missing "terror" in your outline. Not the word itself per se, but the effect on the general population.
I'm still struggling to see how something is terrorism if it isn't intended to instill widespread fear. Not widespread worries, like the managers had. Actual fear.
How are you struggling to see terrorism doesn't have to cause widespread fear in the general population to be terrorism?
> the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
The nitpick was pretty much saying "you need to have a political aim to do terrorism!"
My rebuttal is, by calling things terrorism, the implication is there was some political tilt even if said tilt is unknown. That's the whole point of calling it terrorism.
Whether that was geopolitical, or anti-government, or a protest against the lack of action the national security risk that is our power grid, these reasons are all some form of political motivation.
With the level of sophistication shown, this rises above of trying to create fear for the sake of fear or mischief.
In fact, part of why the fear caused by this was somewhat limited was an initial effort to keep it secret which was later abandoned.
Do you really think a team of coordinated gunmen using advanced scouting techniques, cutting communications lines in an anticipation, showing intimate knowledge of a substation wouldn't have caused widespread fear in a community?
Most people wouldn't even care about the substations, just the idea of coordinated professional gunmen attacking targets would be scary enough... it certainly was for the government
