The Motives Behind a SUV Rampage

Mohammed Taheriazar has repeatedly stated that he intended to cause harm because of all the Muslim blood shed around the world. Amir Taheri's op-ed in the New York Post should disabuse Taheriazar of the notion that the US is behind much of the bloodshed.

In fact, it is often the jihadists themselves who have shed more Muslim blood than any other group, including the US. Witness the death tolls in Kashmir, Algeria, Thailand, and Chechnya for starters. In Algeria alone, more than 150,000 Muslims were killed to "shed blood to irrigate the tree of martyrdom."

Algeria: In 1991, Algeria was divided over whether an election that an Islamist coalition was slated to win should go ahead. This, too, was a political conflict that could have been resolved through political means. In fact, some leaders of the Islamist group, including the late Abdel-Qader Hachani, were engaged in secret talks with the Algerian army leaders to find a compromise.

But then the professional jihadists intervened, starting with series of brutal killings of civilians that had nothing to do with the immediate conflict. In the words of one leader, Jamal Zeituni, they wanted to "shed blood to irrigate the tree of martyrdom."

The jihadists have been defeated in Algeria as they have been, and will be, everywhere else. But over a decade of terrorism they provoked the death of more than 150,000 people, halted Algeria's economic development and slowed down its democratization - and drove more than 3 million Algerians into exile.

Jihadists have exploited secular disputes and turned them into killing fields for their own agendas. This isn't the only time that jihadists have sought to exploit nominally secular incidents for their own purposes; simply recall the French riots from November 2005. More than 10,000 cars were torched in the span of a couple of weeks, hundreds of businesses damaged, thousands of arrests, and several fatalities. Militant Islamists took advantage of the situation to press for more autonomy in their communities and the French authorities largely conceded.

So what does this have to do with Mohammed Taheriazar? Was it the will of Allah?

Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, the 22-year-old UNC Chapel Hill graduate charged with injuring nine people when he drove a Jeep Cherokee down a crowded campus walkway, politely told a judge Monday he's "thankful you're here to give me this trial and to learn more about the will of Allah."

There's a debate now about whether this was an act of terrorism. It certainly was an act of vengeance based on a religious grievance and directed at innocent bystanders. But he apparently acted alone, had no known ties to terrorists and was denounced by the local Muslim Students Association, of which he had not been a member. Call it what you will, he certainly had murder in mind. That's enough.

Perhaps there is a lesson about the will of Allah to be learned from this situation. But contrary to Mr. Taheri-azar's assumption, the lesson seems to be for him. Consider the facts.

Mr. Taheri-azar, formerly of Charlotte, distorted the teachings of Islam, invited scorn for his religion by suggesting it sanctions the slaughter of innocents and gave credence to critics who equate Islam with terrorism.

Then, there's the fact that he's been planning this kind of act for more than two years. I'd call that premediation. He's been stewing in his hatred for at least two years before taking action that could have resulted in multiple murders.

Life on campus is slowly returning to normal, but some are still jittery when they hear loud noises around the Pit. Students are also taking comfort from the fact that Taheriazar apparently acted alone.

I guess you have to take your comfort from whatever sources you can find.

Meanwhile, a Washington Post/ABC News Poll shows that Americans are taking an increasingly negative view of Islam. Can't imagine why. Rampant terrorism perpetrated in the name of Islam all while Muslim leaders talk out of both sides of their mouths.

As the war in Iraq grinds into its fourth year, a growing proportion of Americans are expressing unfavorable views of Islam, and a majority now say that Muslims are disproportionately prone to violence, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The poll found that nearly half of Americans -- 46 percent -- have a negative view of Islam, seven percentage points higher than in the tense months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, when Muslims were often targeted for violence.

Is this a win for bin Laden as Juan Cole and Think Progress thinks? It's taken four years for people to realize that Muslims are killing in the name of religion and will use absolutely any affront (real or perceived) to go on killing ramages (see the cartoon jihad). How many thousands of Muslims have killed each other because of the jihad that Osama and his minions have engaged in? They're the ones trying to start a civil war in Iraq, but that's the US fault? The militant Islamists are trying to use secular conflicts to engage in jihad and the US poll reflect the fact that Americans are recognizing the true nature of our enemy.

The problem is that people are conflating the true enemy - the militant Islamists with the moderate and secular Muslims who want to peacefully coexist with their neighbors. That's one of the struggles the Administration has had since 9/11 - trying to separate the war on terror from a war on Islam. Does this poll suggest that his efforts are failing? Possibly. But considering that Muslims themselves have done little to defend personal freedom and have attacked our constitutional right of free speech and expression overseas (riots, arson, and murders because of the cartoons), along with calls for blasphemy laws, which are antithetical to US free speech interests, those polled may be picking up on the silence of the moderate Muslim.

It isn't enough for Bush to state that there are moderate Muslims. The Muslim community has to do a far better job. And hearing stories like this surely does little to aid the cause of moderate Islam.

UPDATE:
Confederate Yankee looks at the polling and reaches a similar conclusion:

Could it possibly be that the perception of Muslim violence comes from the fact that Muslims act violently, again and again and again?

He also notes that the US invasion of Iraq took place in 2003, which means that we're coming upon the third anniversary of the invasion, not the fourth. It has been just over four years since the 9/11 terrorist attacks when Islamic terrorists killed nearly 3,000 Americans, caused billions in damages, and damaged or destroyed major landmarks.

Others blogging the study: Ace of Spades, Outside the Beltway wonders how 43% of Americans can still hold a positive view of Islam considering the evidence and yet this article is meant to find Americans bigoted. AJ Strata looks at the poll and the DPW deal.

UPDATE:
Reading through the Counterterrorism Blog, one learns that North Carolina does not have an applicable terrorism-related statute that Taheriazar can be charged under. Thus far, Taheriazar is being charged under state law, and no federal charges are pending.

Taheri-azar is being prosecuted in state court. But North Carolina does not have an applicable terrorism offense that can be brought to bear against him. There is a terrorism offense for weapons of mass destruction (not applicable here) and a terrorism sentencing enhancement for murder -- but Taheri-azar did not succeed in murdering anybody.

The federal sentencing guidelines do contain a sentencing enhancement in Guideline 3A1.4 for offenses designed to promote terrorism. (In turn, 18 U.S.C. 2232b(g)(5) sensibly defines a federal crime of terrorism as occurring when the act "is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct.") The problem is that there appears to be no federal crime in this case to provide the federal courts with jurisdiction. The prosecution could argue that there is a federal civil rights violation because this was carried out on the basis of religion. The problem with that argument, though, is that Taheri-azar didn't target his victims on the basis of their religion. Taheri-azar may have been motivated by religion, but the civil rights laws only really come into play when the victim is targeted because of his religion.