Why Bush hasn't called Virginia Tech shooter a terrorist?

Question

If you think about it, the Virginia Tech shooter can be defined as a terrorist according to past Bush policy.

1) His lineage is Korean which can be seen as coming from a communist part of the world that doesn't share democracy.

2) He planned the shooting and carried out the plot to kill Americans

3) He killed several Americans and then himself much like a suicide bomber would have

4) He was a crazy fanatical with beliefs contrary to normal ideaology (he was a radical)

So in some regards wouldn't he be considered someone that would fall into an unlawful combatant? Your thoughts appeciated.

I wanted to add a few responses to what people have been saying...

1) Doesn't believing in something against current policy (being government or even local authorities) constitute a political agenda? He didn't believe in what others believed, all his politics lacked was a name.

2) I am simply comparing similiarities between a mad man shooting and a definition of a terrorist.

3) I did state already known facts that are most likely not going to change including he killed americans, so while I made these statements I am not yet judging based on only these facts. I am waiting for more information.

Answer 1

I've always felt that this unlawful combatant status changes EVERYTHING about the rights of citizens, and for that reason, I feel it is opening a dangerous precedent.

Because all it takes is to claim that a mass shooting falls into this, and then the next time, it's a person who hurts a few, then it gets modified to anyone who harms anyone...and at that point, where do we draw the line.

Our habeas corpus rights (rights to trial) are being threatened in the name of "national security".

Answer 2

A terrorist is someone who commits acts of violence against innocent third parties for a specific political purpose. There is no evidence whatever that this was the case at Virginia Tech.

As for your points:

1. False. The shooter is from South Korea, a democracy for sixty years and a strong ally of the United States.

2. True. So did Ted Bundy, but he was never called a terrorist.

3. True, but once again not relevant. Many stress shooters kill themselves to avoid punishment.

4. Unproven. He might have been disturbed and his ideas might not have been mainstream, but that alone does not make a terrorist. if that were true, Rush Limbaugh would be on the no fly list today.

Being a disturbed radical is not a crime, nor should it be.

The situation is not one of terrorism by definition. It will probably come out that the man was failing his courses and under unreasonable cultural expectations to success. This is just another sad case of too much pressure with too easy access to guns.

The terrorists rely on people like bin Ladn for support, but this person most likely relied on Charlton Heston.

Answer 3

Excuse the pun, but that would shoot a lot of holes in his foreign policy. Everyone needs to understand that to live in a free society means living with the risk of tragedies like the Virginia Tech shooting and 9/11. You can't be free and be safe at the same time. We can't have it both ways. Do we want to be free, or do we want to be safe?

This may sound callous, but let's keep some perspective. When 33 students die in one day because of a shooting, it is tragic. However, cigarettes and alcohol kill on average over 1,500 per day. How many Americans have contracted or been killed by the bird flu? Zero. Why is it all over the news all the time? There are over 160 civilians dead in Baghdad today. The average killed or found dead in Iraq is around 100 per day. How arrogant are we to be so up in arms about an isolated incident? My sympathies to the families and friends of those killed at Virginia Tech, but let's not let our American arrogance get away from us. We started a war with a country that never attacked us and the people there are dying every day. Just keep some perspective, please.

Answer 4

Well, he certainly is a terrorist. I would that one reason he may not be labeled as such by our government, or at least by many, is given other recent terrorist acts, we typically view a terrorist as part of a larger terrorist organization.

In response to your first point, it isn't really valid. For one, he was from South Korea, which is a republic, it's not a communist country. Don't get South Korea confused with North Korea, they have incredibly differing governments. Also, he's lived in the United States for 15 years.

Answer 5

A terrorist is one who commits an action for political or idealogical beliefs. This guy apparently had some mental issues which caused his break with reality.

** the guy had lived in America since he was eight, and he was SOUTH KOREAN, not North Korean, with which we are having nuclear issues with.

**sidenote--South Korea has no known "school shootings" whereas here in America, there have been numerous shootings. I would speculate that this is an American cultural problem.

Answer 6

They cannot make that assumption right now. There is not enough evidence right now as they are still reviewing the facts and the video NBC was sent by him. They know he was very disturbed, but they cannot outright call him a terrorist. I do believe they will go with that label in due time. It has been two days, give it a week and there will be more facts.

Answer 7

You are missing the most important component. A declaration of political ideology that gave purpose to his murders. The picture could change, but the picture right now is of a maladjusted young man who was stalking two women and wrote stories about murder, mayhem and his hatred for women and his hatred for his fellow students, who he saw as rejecting him as a person. He fits the same profile as those kids who shot up Columbine. Being mentally ill does not qualify him for political terrorism status. It points in an entirely different direction.

Answer 8

your an idiot.. plan and simple.....

1) his lineage has nothing to do with anything

2) he was here legally, was in the process of becoming an American citizen. most acts like this are pre planned

3) exactly how many people that committ such horrible acts don't committ suicide afterwards?, not all killed were Americans ( ie one of the professors)

4) point 4 may have about 1% of someting intelligent in it... and that being he was a crazy fanatical.

Answer 9

He lawfully obtained his weapon and didn't use it for a terrorist (Islamist) political purpose.

You don't seem to understand that if Bush and company call this guy a "terrorist" the Democrats might win the passage of a new restriction on second amendment rights! This would not serve the political objectives of the Republican party, and that is far more important than saving lives.

Answer 10

You adult males have the main distorted theory approximately terrorism i've got ever seen ! Terrorism : to terrorize human beings .. it incredibly is it did no longer the victims sense terrorized ? did no longer their households do ? did no longer the completed u . s . a . do ? That guy might desire to have been referred to as a terroist too , yet provided that usa does not care approximately muslims or how they sense it is okay for them to call muslims terrorists , yet Korea is a robust u . s . a . so usa shouldn't harrass it .. do no longer you get it yet ? that's a jungle .. Survival is for the foremost . might Allah relax each and every of the victims souls .