Reverse Missiles / not an "attack"

[RGTraynor]

In a thread on another forum, a poster opined that the Reverse Missiles spell does not work against suppressing fire, on the premise that it's not actually an "attack," and that RAW leans on the term "attacker" used throughout.

Now at my own table, I'd rule that as nonsense; someone shooting bullets at me isn't off the hook just because he might not explicitly be attempting to hit *me*, and furthermore that reduces the effectiveness of an expensive and prerequisite-laden spell. (Beyond that, how in the merry hell is the spell divining the intent of the "attacker?" The spell's sentient? It's able to read the mind of the attacker, divine his intent and act upon it? Does it then not work at all upon an automatic trap/weapon system, or a missile with internal homing capability? And if so, shouldn't Mind-Reading be thrown into the prerequisite basket?)

But now I'm curious. Is that actually the intent of RAW, or is "attacker" just a simple way not to have to repeat "person initially launching the missile?"