Mohammed Taheri-azar Runs Over Students for Allah
 |
James Joyner | Monday, March 6, 2006 |
Mohammed Taheri-azar rented a Jeep and drove it through the campus of his alma mater, the University of North Carolina, trying to run over students. Hit hit several of the and freely admits he was hoping to kill them.
Why? He wanted “to spread the will of Allah” and “punish the government of the United States for [its] actions around the world.”
WRAL has a video of the incident and audio of a 911 call.
Athena has a personality profile and an assessment of whether Taheri qualifies as a “terrorist.” Cori Dauber, Michelle Malkin (who dubs Taheri the “Tar Heel Terrorist”), and Kim Priestap weigh in on that topic as well.
Some commonly applied definitions of terrorism:
- “Systematic use of violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve an end.” (Webster’s)
- “The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.” (Defense Department)
- “International terrorism is terrorism conducted with the support of a foreign government or organization and / or directed against foreign nationals, institutions or governments.” (State Department)
- “Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” (FBI)
Taheri’s act qualifies under some of those definitions and not under others.
From what we know now, he was acting alone and this was a one-time event. So, it was not “systematic” nor “with the support of” anyone and would not qualify under the Webster’s or State Department definitions. It would, however, seem to fit the DoD and, especially, FBI definitions.
Still, it sounds like the guy is just a less-than-stable loser rather than a calculating jihadist. Indeed, one has to be a complete moron to hit fifteen people with a Jeep with the intent to kill them and somehow manage not to kill anyone. My guess is that he’s a “terrorist” in the same way the looters yelling “Rodney King!” while running down the streets with their television sets were “militants.”
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia with his wife and infant daughter.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- None Found
- OTB Latenight – r.e.m.
- Krugman on the Debt and Deficits
- A Question About Bonuses and Bailouts
- Republican Purity and Conservatism
- SNL Obama China Skit
- Journalistic Ethics and Illegally Acquired Documents
- National Debt Hysteria?
- Educating Illegal Immigrants
- Caption Contest
- Nathalie Blanchard Facebook Smile Leaves Her Depressed
- Mohammed Taheri-azar Wanted To ‘Spread Will Of Allah’ linked with OTB News
- Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with UNC Grad Charged With Attempted Murder After Plowing Crowd...
- A Blog For All linked with Labeling the Taheriazar Incident...
- Rhymes With Right linked with Still Won't Call It Terrorism...
Taheri-azar told the courtroom that he was "thankful for the opportunity to spread the will of Allah."
As he left court, Taheri-Azar told reporters, "the truth is my lawyer." When asked if he was trying to kill people, he said yes.
Can't you find someone a little more deserving to make excuses for?
Jack: I hardly call "less-than-stable loser" an excuse. I merely note he does not meet most classic definitions of a terrorist.
less-than-stable loser rather than a calculating jihadist
I am somewhat skeptical that the two are mutually exclusive.
I guess I'm missing your point. If he had a little heavier foot on the accelarator and a little steadier hand on the wheel then he would have been a terrorist but now he's just a misguided soul?
Kent: True that.
Jack: No, he would have been a "murderer" rather than a "would-be murderer."
Who just randomly decided to murder some infidels in the name of Allah?
Okay, so he's a terrorist wanna-be.
I'm not so sure that's one of those differences that makes a difference.
Maybe he was just pissed that Duke lost?
Comments are Closed
