I followed this story all day, obsessively, because the flow of information was so strange.

The only agencies calling this a terrorist attack are the UK government and Met Police....

• This is the first public statement released on the matter, news outlets and conversation have since repeated terrorism so much that it seem to be accepted fact. Members of the British Government have since indicated it's "being investigated as a terrorist attack, including extremely specious claims such as the ones in this story. Theresa May has since gone on record saying "The terrorist chose to strike at the heart of our capital city, where people of all nationalities, religions and cultures come together to celebrate the values of liberty, democracy and freedom of speech.". This does not jive with the "And although we remain open minded to the motive..." statement released by the Metropolitan Police, who ostensibly are the ones conducting the investigation. It also directly contradicts the statment offered by the mayor of London The government proclaimed it, so it is.

• The chain of events, for how linear they were (plows car through crowd, killing two (edit: sadly now 3), crashes, gets out, uses a knife to stab an officer, is then shot. Both he and the stabbed officer die) were reported in wildly divergent manners throughout the day. I cannot source this as much as I would like due to the nature of the articles that were carrying divergent claims being updated frequently throughout the day.

• The only images of the alleged attacker were first published by The Mirror in a story that was largely conjecture and subsequently have not been picked up by more reputable outlets like Reuters.

• Hundreds of people witnessed it, yet no reputable outlet has published a clear description of the attacker, or pictures other than the ones released by the mirror. The attacker was identified by some outlets as a radical hate preacher who is currently in prison. As such the best description we have from a halfway trust-able source is that of The Independent "Security sources have described the suspected assailant as a middle-aged Asian man, who attacked the officer on foot with a seven-to-eight inch knife.". They have since decided to add mildly blurred images versions of the images first Released by The Mirror to their story. (I am well aware of that including the middle east, simply saying outside of the images from the Mirror the best description we have of the assailant is inclusive of at least a third of the world population).

• A reporter from the Daily Mail, Quentin Letts, was at the scene of the incident. His writings indicate him to be a Brexit supporter who is not fond of Islam. Reuters used his vague account in their live updated story tracking the events of the day, so it's safe to assume this is fact... This is his only tweet about the day's events. Yet yesterday this merited mention? The Daily Mail is a clickbait rag yet all of their reporting is based on the government proclamation of terror attack- they haven't exploited the fact that they have a scoop no one else has and gone to press with anything from their reporter who watched events unfold? This is very unusual for the Daily Mail who normally would be chomping at the bit to have an exclusive like that so closely tied to the day's biggest story.

• Rex Tillerson wouldn't even commit to terror attack in the letter of condolences he sent, to quote

  "The American people send their thoughts and prayers to the people of the United Kingdom. We condemn these horrific acts of violence, and whether they were carried out by troubled individuals or by terrorists, the victims know no difference,"

• Reuters has yet to reference the incident as such- they put "terror" or "terrorist attack" in quotes still per the rules of their style guide.

There's so much more too... that said...

I simply don't understand why it's assumed this is a terrorist attack before any evidence​ is given...

It seems like be better approach would be to assume mentally ill individual acting independent of any group until something that contradicts that hypothesis is discovered.

I feel like I'm losing my damn mind. The narrative is being forced down a certain path, no information is being released, and no one seems to take issue with it, just yup, terrorism. It effectively is now established as a terrorist attack despite NO evidence being released, the narrative simply slowly shifted throughout the day.

Am I overlooking something? Or have words lost all meaning?

A "terrorist attack" implies some coordination with others to advance a specific agenda, weaken or perhaps provoke the target, and instill fear in the populace.

A mentally ill person, regardless of motivation- be it religion, the voices in his/her head, whatever is still just a mentally ill individual.

• The incident in Orlando was reported as a "mass shooting" not a "terrorist attack".

• Robert Lewis Dear's attack on a Planned Parenthood clinic was reported as a "mass shooting" not a "terrorist attack"

• Dylan Roof's racially motivated attack in Charleston was reported as a "mass shooting" not a "terrorist attack".

• Elliot Rodger's attack in Isla Vista was reported as a "mass shooting" not a "terrorist attack"

• Newtown, CT was reported as a "mass shooting" not a "terrorist attack"

Individuals are individuals with mental health problems, influenced by any number of things, that do horrible things. Terrorist implies coordinated effort.

The distinction matters and I feel it's being purposely obfuscated for largely political purposes.