I think ‘terrorist attack’ implies that the attack had political motives rather than personal or delusional motives.
Yes, and that is by far the most likely case. So it would fair and accurate to call it an “apparent terrorist attack”. When you hear hoofbeats, don’t look for zebras.
yy: Come now, what is the reason he deliberately refrained from calling a terror attack, and has not referred to any of the other clearly terror attacks that have happened under his watch as such? (Fort Hood, Benghazi).
You might agree with his reason, but if so–say that. If you agree with it, you should have no reason to hide it.