How is Virginia Tech Massacre Different from 9/11?
@DesigningLife (903)
United States
April 24, 2007 8:39am CST
Are there similarities between the events? Why do we take completely different actions as if one was worse than the other? I have been pondering these thoughts and wonder if anyone else thinks about this.
Under the current US Administration, a person of foreign descent attacked and massacred many Americans. Without having any basis or proof indicating additional killings would occur from this person or his homeland toward us, we invaded his country and have watched as thousands of our brave soldiers have died, have retaliated and seen thousands of people who are NOT the culprit of the event be killed as a result.
Cho was from South Korea. According to our government's present mode of twisted thinking and "rationalization", shouldn't we now be sending troops to South Korea? (Of course not, anymore than I believe we should have sent troops to Iraq when a stealth team of undercover executioners could have gone secretly and wiped out Bin Laden rather than wreak havoc on the Middle east and its' citizens, leaving him unharmed).
If the shooting spree had occurred in a building closer to the location of our "beloved leaders", or if South Korea had resources we wanted for ourselves, would the reaction and response to the Virginia Massacre have been different?
2 people like this
2 responses
@nicolec (2671)
• United States
24 Apr 07
I see many flaws in your theory. First, yes Cho was from South Korea, but he was a naturalized citizen with a greencard. Therefore, technically we can not blame South Korea but our own government. Where as the terroists of 9/11 were not americans, and most likely received some foreign government assistance for their training.
The question of sending in troops versus a small undercover group of executioners is a little tricky. It's questionable as to whether the US ever knew where to find Bin Laden. If we knew where he was, could a small group do it, perhaps. However that would be a secret mission. And after 9/11 this country cried war! The american citizens brought out their flags, thumped their chests and said 'Mr President, let us attack those who attacked us". Do you remember what this country was like back then? Now I agree that us moving into Iraq was a Bush personal agenda and we should have focused on Afghanastan. But that is another topic altogether.
To sum up my long winded answer, there are no similarities between the two. Cho was distressed. People tried to help. He ignored the help and this happened. 9/11 was an attack on america. Against america. By rationally thinking people. Maybe I'm naive, but I see two different things.
@DesigningLife (903)
• United States
24 Apr 07
Thank you for your well-thought out response. I appreciate everyone's views...and I do tend to enjoy pondering ideas and issues - thy "why" of things.
I realize Cho had been a citizen since the age of 8 yrs old I believe, but it was interesting to see that he had attacked a certain group or class of people (rich greedy brats I think he said) and Bin Laden's actions - in my mind - stem from the same type of twisted "vision" of people he despises.
In the way of both being acts of terrorism, both originating from irrational minds, both referring to another group as "wrong" and then killing because of it, I can see similarities in the acts but not the responses to them. The fact that Bin Laden was not a citizen really doesnt matter, do you think that the government would have waged war if he were from Australia or if he was living here with a green card for several years and then decided to hit the towers, etc, and flee?
Maybe a long way around the topic, but I was just trying to draw comparisons to show how idiotic and detrimental I think that our Government's handling (mishandling) of the war effort has been.
@nicolec (2671)
• United States
24 Apr 07
You brought up an interesting point, if Bin Laden was Australian, would the government have acted the same way? I don't know the answer to that and can only speculate that yes, we would have invaded the country to seek out those responsible. But being that we are on good terms with the Australian governmnet, it would have been in conjunction with their own army. It would have been like the US was helping the Australian government fish out thier own sharks.
The other big difference is that Cho was not that different from the people he killed. I don't know his exact monetary back ground, but in the eyes of many he too would be considered a rich braty kid.
1 person likes this
@Denmarkguy (1845)
• United States
28 Apr 07
Well now... don't give them any ideas!
Seriously, though, whereas I can see how you arrive at similarities... right down to the attacks being carried out by disenfranchised individuals... it falls apart for me when I follow the "motivation trail." Cho was certainly battling his share of demons and hated the "establishment," but he was an independent actor in his own drama, rather than a part of something "greater." He didn't "represent" an organization, just himself. As such, I believe it's a little more of a stretch.
But still, an interesting speculation.
1 person likes this
@DesigningLife (903)
• United States
28 Apr 07
Thank you, your response was well thought out and concise!
;)
