I'm intrigued by Ayman al Zawahiri's latest remarks:

Al Qaeda's deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahri said offences against Prophet Mohammad were part of a "crusader" campaign led by the United States, and he urged Muslims to conduct new strikes on the West.

In a video broadcast Saturday on Al-Jazeera Arab satellite network, Al Qaeda's No. 2 leader criticized the West for insulting Islam's prophet.

Referring to cartoons of the prophet that have been printed in European newspapers, Zawahri said: "They did it on purpose and they continue to do it without apologizing, even though no one dares to harm Jews or to challenge Jewish claims about the Holocaust, nor even to insult homosexuals."

(Via Joe Gandelman.)

Zawahri, wearing a black turban -- a symbol of war to Muslims -- and seated in front of a curtained window, waived his right hand while speaking, emphasizing his message.

"The insults against Prophet Muhammad are not the result of freedom of opinion but because what is sacred has changed in this culture,'' he said.

"The Prophet Mohammed, prayers be upon him, and Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, are not sacred anymore, while Semites and the Holocaust and homosexuality have become sacred.''

Why add the homos all of a sudden and throw in Jesus? Might this be a crude way of attempting to broaden the message? As to what Zawahiri wants his loyal supporters to do, he emphasizes economic losses:

Zawahri added: "(Muslims have to) inflict losses on the crusader West, especially to its economic infrastructure, with strikes that would make it bleed for years."

"The strikes on New York, Washington, Madrid and London are the best examples," he said.

According to UNC's student newspaper The Daily Tar Heel, the protest targets "the news media's reluctance to label it terrorism."

Is the reluctance based on the fact that an SUV was used and they don't want to "cause a panic"? What are the qualifying attributes of an act of terrorism these days?

Do you have to use a plane?

Parenthetically, I think it's worth noting that not only was alcohol not involved, but as of last Spring, the SUV-wielding Iranian "lived up to the religious ideals of being a good person," "had begun studying the Quran," and "completely swore off alcohol and drugs."

While I don't know what goes on at "the Pit" the Iranian's target was described as "a sunken, brick-paved area surrounded by two libraries, a dining hall and the student union."

Probably a place where students enjoy having fun -- precisely the sort of thing guys like Zawahiri want to stop.

(The best way to defy these assholes is to keep right on doing it.)

MORE: God and Taliban Man at Yale? Say it isn't so! Sigh.

The diversity of denial is a common thread these days.

AND MORE: In another must-read essay, Jeff Goldstein really lets Yale and the multicultural left have it, arguing that feminists are laying the groundwork "for the deconstruction of western feminism itself" and concluding:

....over the last few years, I’ve come to recognize that America is battling for its very soul—and the battle is between those who promote liberal founding principles, and those whose learned relativism has taken a turn toward Machiavellian power politics and the attempt to wrest control over metanarratives, and has done so while, ironically, clinging to the liberal label.

MORE: The Jawa Report has two posts up on the UNC attack. (I guess it's safe to call it an "attack," even if it turns out that the attacker attacked because he "snapped.")

UPDATE (2:50 p.m.): Michelle Malkin links to this post stating that the attacker's drug use caused him to be rejected from a fraternity:

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."

He 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.

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.

MORE: The defendant's statements at his arraignment make it clear (to me at least) that the man had a religious motivation for his crime, and sees his own trial as a propaganda opportunity:

Judge Patricia Devine asked if he had any questions at this morning's arraignment.

"I actually don't have any questions," said Taheri-azar, clad in a long-sleeve orange jumpsuit and leg shackles. "I am thankful you are going to hear this trial to learn more about the will of Allah, the creator."

After police arrested Taheri-azar Friday, he told them he acted to "avenge the American treatment of Muslims," an FBI spokesman in Washington said.

Six of the victims in Friday's attack were treated at a local hospital for minor injuries. Afterward, Taheri-azar called police and waited on a side street near campus. A police bomb squad also searched his apartment but would not say what was found.

MORE: An anonymous commenter below states:

I didn't say he was rejected because of his drug use. There are plenty, plenty, of frat boys who smoke marijuana. This was not your service fraternity. They rejected him because he didn't get along well, didn't fit in, and kept to himself all the time, which goes against the point of a frat.

MORE: As to the definition of terrorism, there are many, but I'm inclined to agree with UNC student Stephen Mann

Muslim students who debated with organizers and said Taheri-azar had not been linked to any terrorist group.

"When you think in terms of a global context, this was an isolated incident," said Khurram Bilal Tariq, a 22-year-old junior.

Stephen Mann, an 18-year-old freshman, said he wasn't singling out Islam with his call to label Friday's incident terrorism. He said a member of any religion who did what Taheri-azar is accused of doing should be called a terrorist.

"If you try to hurt someone in the name of a cause, that's terrorism," he said.

MORE: According to a police recording Taher-azar told a dispatcher that he wanted to "punish the government":

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. -- A University of North Carolina graduate accused of running down nine people on campus told an emergency dispatcher he wanted to "punish the government of the United States for their actions around the world," according to a 911 recording released Monday.

IMPORTANT NOTE: By referring to Zawahiri, I do not mean to suggest that he is directly in charge of individual acts of terrorism. Rather, he is (a bit like Zerzan and others, discussed infra) a sort of philosophical inspiration:

Instead, we need to face up to the simple truth that bin Laden, Zawahiri et al do not need to organise attacks directly. They merely wait for the message they have spread around the world to inspire others. Al-Qaeda is now an idea, not an organisation.

We now have a situation where autonomous cells carry out attacks on targets and at times of their own choosing, which are then applauded by al-Qaeda leaders of global infamy but limited practical ability to execute or organise strikes. This is exactly as Zawahiri and bin Laden had hoped. This is a virtual terrorist network, not a real one.

UPDATE (03/07/06): Today's Philadelphia Inquirer (on page A7) has picked up the story, headlined "Graduate held in SUV attack cites Allah at N.C. bail hearing."

UPDATE (03/09/06): Glenn weighs in:

There's no question that this [Islamist] angle is being downplayed. But it's arguable that the papers are doing this to reduce the likelihood of copycats. This doesn't appear to have been any sort of organized attack, just a lone-wolf effort by a guy who's not too sharp. It's still terrorism, of course, of a sort -- after all, Eric Rudolph was a lone-wolf guy who wasn't too sharp, though he seems to have been considerably sharper than Taheri-azar -- but in some ways it's more like the school shootings of the 1990s than real Al Qaeda type terrorism. Hyping those shootings led to copycats, and made the killers look like martyrs to disturbed potential imitators. There's a pretty good argument that the same applies here, and that it's more responsible to address this in fairly muted tones.