My position all along on the attack on the UNC campus has been, I think, pretty clear. I have not been arguing that it wasn't terrorism, only that we had insufficient evidence to make a final determination.
Okay, I'm sold. Here is the text of a letter written by Taher-Azeri to a local paper, the Durham Herald Sun.
Now that the story is no longer getting national attention, will all those outlets who covered it when things were ambiguous, covered the rally as the news hook for stories centered on the way the attack raised questions about the definition of terrorism -- will those outlets return and pick up this new development?
Update: Guess he had a busy weekend. Via Michelle Malkin, he also wrote local ABC-11.
I think this new interpretation (individual motivated by terrorist intention) should also cause us to go back and reinterpret the cases of Hasan Akbar, who threw the grenade in the tents of the 1st Brigade, 101st Airborne, just prior to the US invasion, and the case of the attack on the El Al counter at LAX. IIRC, both of these cases meet the same criteria.
Posted by: Bob | March 16, 2006 at 08:28 AM
Never mind the media. How about Moeser? Doesn't even know a terrorist even when one runs over his students.
Posted by: Locomotive Breath | March 16, 2006 at 12:25 PM
It's interesting to see the full letter, which is available as PDF here:
http://a.abclocal.go.com/three/wtvd/pdf/031406letter.pdf
He says he is a devout muslim, has read the koran over 100 times, and was simply following its contents to the letter when he tried to murder infidels.
Who are we to argue?
Posted by: Media Hound | March 16, 2006 at 03:12 PM