After speaking with someone who knew Taheri-Azar, a little bit more interesting details come into view. The guy I spoke with said Taheri-azar pledged his fraternity, Sig Ep, and that the frat "blackballed" him, meaning kicked him out because he was such a recluse and antisocial. They referred to him as "Mo." Sig Ep is a typical fraternity, fairly popular, and while "Animal House" would be an exagerration, it's a site of frequent parties. And while all frats do some form of community service, Sig Ep isn't your co-ed service fraternity that exists soley for that function.

The Sig Ep brother said that Taheri-azar was from a wealthy family, a frequent marijuana smoker and "most always high" and that he drank heavily as well. So much for being religiously pious. Though, it is reported that in the past year he turned away from these habits and became more religious.

My first conclusions were that it's highly unlikely he's related to any type of "cell." First of all, his actions show that he's a complete novice, that he had no operational funding, and that the attack was not well planned (although he did rent the Jeep from Enterprise). Further information continues to corroborate this.

Lone wolf actor - antisocial behavior

The guy I spoke with also said he seemed to have few friends and didn't "fit-in" socially. From this and his actions, Taheri-azar fits well as a "lone wolf" actors that go out and try to do the "will of Allah." Socially awkward and looking for something to legitimize themselves, to make them feel "worth" something---they turn to this type of behavior.

They find a purpose in a religious ideology because they are empty. He had money, he had an education from one of the finest schools in the country [I am biased], he had a job (although it was at a local fast food restaurant--Jimmy John's subs) he turned to this. Once again, this shows that it's not necessarily poverty that drives people to take on these type of causes. (See Marc Sageman's book Understanding Terror Networks)

Is this terrorism?

Now the issue is, do we label this terrorism? UNC professor Cori Dauber who teaches "Rhetoric of Terrorism" has up a post on this:

A word on language. You know I'm quick to jump when the media does not appropriately use the words, "terrorist" or "terrorism." I notice a number of people are complaining about that here and asking if there might be a link to the fact that the Daily Tar Heel jumped into the cartoon fray, publishing their own cartoon (and good on 'em.)

We just aren't there yet.

Because this is an individual, we need to know more about motive. Yeah, yeah, I know what he said. Not enough.

Is this a "lone wolf" or a single disturbed kid?

We need to know what was in that apartment.

Did the cops find jihadist DVDs and audio tapes? Was he on jihadist web sites, participating in their chat rooms?

Or did they only find full and un-used bottles of anti-depressants and anti-psychotics?

Jihadist, or lonely guy looking to get attention?

We just don't know yet.

(But, please, we surely know this wasn't a hit-and-run, which implies no intent.)

If what Taheri-azar says is true, that he did this because of his desire to do the "will of Allah," then yes, I'd label it terrorism, but let's be careful not to cheapen the word "terrorism" itself as this certainly compares little to a well-funded and organized operation. But it could have been, meaning this type of act could have been worse, could have been well-funded and could have been well-organized. Here we run into a core problem with defining terrorism. Is it outcome based or intent based?

It's dangerous to label it only by outcome, a few lucky developments for terrorists can ratchet up a death toll.

Attacking a University would be symbolic, although it may alienate a few "sympathizers" and please know that I'm not saying those who "aid and abet," but those who think terrorists are misunderstood.

Or did he snap without political intent?

Or did Taheri-azar just have a screw loose, realize he messed up and wants to use the treatment of Muslims as an excuse to gain some sympathy? Well, he's clearly not smart if this is the case, because now this turns into a debate over terrorism after his statements. We must remember he did rent the car to do this with as well. I doubt this is the case, but we can't rule it out as an option, when we have no released information from the FBI concerning if he had jihadist information in his apartment.

The Daily Tar Heel, the campus newspaper, has lots of coverage.

Why does this matter?

To me, his behavior pattern squares with empirical evidence (see Sageman) of the path other jihadists have taken. Social misfit, not extremely poor, well-educated, and a past involving drinking and drugs. I'm not comfortable with labeling him a jihadist, maybe he should be classified more as simply crazy and needed a reason to inflict some chaos. To me jihadists are very rational, albeit a different rationality than us; afterall suicide bombing to us seems like the height of psychosis. This attack seems more irrational than not.

Sageman's book talks extensively of friendship networks as how to pull in recruits. Did Taheri-azar have a group of such friends? I doubt it. First he's most likely Shia Iranian, and it's extremely unlikely to find a whole group in this manner, at this type of setting, that would want to do such damage, that didn't alarm others in the community. And with the recent world events, I just can't see him having a friend network of likeminded Sunnis.

Most imporantly, I believe this exposes the sociological aspect of one turning towards jihadism. And the more we can understand why, how, and when, then it's more likely we'll be able to identify this type of behavior.

Taheri-azar isn't a big deal because he planned and executed poorly, but he does make us ask "what if?"

What if those with more training, money, and stricter discipline wanted to mount an attack on a college campus? What he did truly was child's play, but imagine if he had packed explosives in the Jeep, or even the news coverage if the six people he ran over had died?

This reminds me of the University of Oklahoma suicide bombing. I don't want to come across as alarmist, but we should at least investigate these types of incidents, and they should serve as a heads-up on the vulnerability of soft targets. And while we may never be able to fully identify lone-wolf type actors, the wider populace can become more vigilant and sensitive to patterns that could turn into actions.