VA Tech Shooting Worst in American History? Native Americans Think otherwise!

Wasn't that Cho's problem? He wasn't a part of the community. He felt like an outsider. He seemed to act like and believe he was a trained soldier, in some sense. He'd learned that he had to do that, through self teaching, experience or whatever. He planned it - military style. Then he took pictures, kind of like a martyr or a soldier might.

Maybe psychologically he wouldn't see the difference.

If that didn't make sense, I'm going to the shop and I'll think of something better to say when I get back :)

What is the psychological difference, in your opinion?
 
In order to kill, you have to divorce yourself from the victim. This is pretty easy to achieve, we're fairly well wired for it.

I suppose the difference between Cho and a soldier, I guess, is a matter of degree. The difference between you and I and any US college student isn't nearly so great as that and some rabid raghead in Ragistan. Yeah, sure, we're all people so I guess we're all the same, if you buy that liberal bullshit, which as an American, you should. The slave owning forefathers sure thought so.

Shit. That was a digression.
What was the difference....
Oh, right. The difference was in Cho's head and more likely the result of abnormal biology and unique social situation rather than the more standard "Islams are evil" us vs. them mentality that springs so naturally from civilization.
 
I'm not American, but I get your point. I agree with you to an extent. Sitting here at home, another few Iraqis to add to the tally doesn't mean shit to me. If there was a carbomb anywhere in the UK or the western world for that matter, my ears would prick up and I'd watch the news. It doesn't even register with Iraqis because I'm so used to hearing it. Maybe I'm not cut out to be a soldier, but I don't think I'd be like that if I was the one killing them.

Unless I truly believed. Some soldiers must believe in the good they're doing, what they've been told to do and the reason they're doing it. If that was the case, it'd be a lot easier I think. So, do the other soldiers force themselves to believe or how else can they kill. That's what I don't get. There'll be a few people a sandwich short of a picnic, but not all of them can be. I'm getting OT here, but yeah, I suppose I see what you're saying.
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
The definition of "terrorism" has been beaten to death in numerous threads. Please review. The attribute that is missing here is the political motive for an act of extortion:
  • An attempt to force a civilian population to support a cause so unpopular that support cannot be gained by any other means and to petition their government to submit to the demands of the terrorist.
Calling the Oklahoma City bomber a terrorist isn't too much of a stretch. His complaint was purely political: The government is too big and too intrusive. He attacked a government installation (which may actually classify him as an "insurgent" rather than a "terrorist" but that's for another argument), making the political motivation clear. The extortion angle is a little weak but surely he hoped that Americans would be moved by the loss of life to give more respect to the Lunatic Fringe of the Libertarian Movement. (He didn't do his homework and discover there were children there, which destroyed any hope of respect.)

Anyway, analysis of Cho's activities does not turn up this key aspect, which prevents us from calling him a terrorist. Every mass murderer is not a terrorist and it's important to make that distinction. One must not tackle the threat of mass murder the same way one tackles the threat of terrorism.
Click to expand...

In his manifesto, Cho says "You thought it was one pathetic boy's life you were extinguishing. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people."
Cho's was an ideological objective, not a political one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top