Are those the only requirements you think make something an act of terror?
Which requirements are they missing, that are applicable to the pager attack?
Well let’s see, the FBI calls international terrorism “Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state-sponsored).” And I’d argue the pagers were state-sponsored, violent, and to my knowledge criminal since killing civilians is typically viewed as criminal.
But I really like how Wikipedia words it:
the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants (mostly civilians and neutral military personnel). There are various different definitions of terrorism, with no universal agreement about it. Different definitions of terrorism emphasize its randomness, its aim to instill fear, and its broader impact beyond its immediate victims.
Do I really need to spell out for you how using an IED to kill whoever happens to be near it when the detonator is pressed fits this definition? If so I’d like to see why you think Oct 7th was a terrorist attack.
Because bystanders were not deliberately targeted by the pager attack. They were collateral. If I launch 20 rockets at a military base and a couple of them go astray and several civilians are killed, that is not a terrorist attack, even if I was aware of the possibility of that happening. Should I have been more careful? Maybe, but that is a different discussion. If I launch those rockets at a marketplace with the intention of killing/terrorizing civilians, that would be a terrorist attack. And that is the difference between the pager attack and Oct 7: intent.
