SOCIAL IMPRESSIONS

Last week’s Virginia Tech massacre hit home with me since my brother is a student there. I was glued to the TV, and read almost every article I could get my hands on to learn more about what occurred on that bloody Monday. Claimed as the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, many asked why the shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, wasn’t referred to as a “terrorist” but a “mass murder.” He killed 32 people and wounded 29 others before he took his own life. I have heard many claims that if Cho was an Arab or a Muslim, he would have definitely been labeled a “terrorist.” Is that the case?

According to terrorism expert, A.P Schmid, terrorism is “an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby “in contrast to assassination” the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought.”

Although Cho’s actions did cause a lot of “anxiety” due to the death and injury of several innocent students, this was his first overt attempt at inflicting pain, suffering, and death upon others. Cho was not “employed” or led by anybody. His own pain and mental illness drove him to believe that his actions will make him a martyr for the unprivileged, pure and wholesome. Police officials speculate that his “criminal” actions where not politically-driven or religiously-oriented, they were a rebellious act against all those who have hurt him throughout his life.

It is very evident that Cho’s attack was deliberate and planned. Between the two attacks, Cho sent a package to NBC containing a DVD with 27 video clips, 43 still pictures with captions, one audio clip and a multi-page typewritten manifesto. This was his way of sending his message to the masses. Although the attacks were exclusively in West Ambler Johnston Hall and Norris Hall, the barrels of his guns did not discriminate when it came to taking lives. Round after round, innocent students fell to the ground leaving behind families, friends and what may have been.

The last sentence of the definition of terrorism doesn’t really apply to Cho as he did not have “threat or violent based communication” with his victims. In fact, one of Cho’s main attributes was how quiet, withdrawn, and unresponsive he was to others. Many speculate that Cho didn’t have an agenda in his attacks, he was just a bitter and disturbed person who wanted to retaliate.

After breaking down the definition, Cho only enacted elements of terrorism. He did not fulfill the descriptions of a true terrorist. Timothy McVeigh? terrorist. Osama Bin Laden? terrorist. Seung-Hui Cho? mass murderer.