Massacre at Virginia Tech

[Disgruntled70sHab]

franko said:

I'll speak to one point:

skilly said:

Like Dis said (if I am reading him right) , these individuals might get their "inspiration" from . . . a stranger saying "excuse me" the wrong way

The book I recommended (Thanks for Chucking . . . ) speaks a bit to this.

Of course, it did deal with severe cases in the school system, but one example from the book comes to mind.

The kids the author deals with are angry and they take their anger out on others with little hesitation. Example: Someone bumps into you. You immediately take offense (I think this goes for us "normal" [whatever that is] people as well) and say something (the kids would push back). If you turn around and see the person with a white cane you think "blind, didn't see me, it was unintentional". Question: why couldn't a "seeing" person have bumped into you accidentally as well? Perception, though, says (for these kids) someone is out to get me and they strike back.

I'm no expert by any means, but from what I understand Paradigms, or how we view the world, are neurtured in our upbringing and/or social evnironments. They account for the way we preceive things, how we interpret information, etc.

This also applies to groups as well. Every family has a group paradigm, but where it becomes a problem is when a negative paradigm is deliberately planted sometimes within an entire society. It turns into a pack mentality, where even the most minor changes are viewed as threats to the way of life, society, et al.

On a lesser scale, check out some Internet discussion boards that have a solid core of longstanding community members. New ideas from newer members are sometimes ripped simply because they're suggesting something against the norm.

It's not so prevalent here on this board (though it does happen from time to time), but check out other boards when you have the time. The best example of an Internet pack mentality for me was, Cornflake's Hockey World. I saw posters, good ones, get jumped on because they criticized the Leafs (which was the format of the board at the time).

Some people are angry and look for any excuse. Some people are loners and look for any way of getting attention. Some people are mean and pull legs off ants. Society/environment has something to do with the way they feel, sure, but ultimately we are should be responsible for our actions. Unfortunately, it is easy to blame television, or video games, or alcoholic parents, or George W for the ills of our tiny little world and not think that we have choices. It is always someone else's fault (did I share the article from an Australian paper about a guy suing the railroad company because he injured himself while spraying graffiti -- the company should have known people would spray, and should have taken better precautions to make sure it could be done? "Not my fault". Too bad you can't outlaw stupidity. I guess that's where the Darwin Awards come in.).

And even we, here in Canada, have people who believe that the government has an obligation to provide them with a living from the time their born to the time they die. And successive governments have provided the perfect environments for this to flourish.

It's getting better, but we're not out of the woods yet. This guy sounds like thousands of others who are simply looking for a handout. It has nothing to do with paradigms. He simply wants the easy way out. But, where did he learn it and who provided the environment?

Cheers.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

And it's all our fault. Sueng-Hui washes his hands of any accountability. A cut and paste:

"You had a hundred billion chances and ways to have avoided today," 23-year-old Cho rages. "But you decided to spill my blood. You forced me into a corner and gave me only one option. The decision was yours. Now you have blood on your hands that will never wash off."

It's clear the killer saw himself as the victim.

"You have vandalized my heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience," he explains. "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."

The last statement jumped out at me "... I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and defenseless people."

Is he viewing himself as the saviour to the weak and defenseless? Does he see himself as the same?

The whole scoop

[franko]

disgruntled70shab said:

And it's all our fault.

My immediate thought as well, Dis.

"You're rich, I'm not; you're popular, I'm not . . . you deserve to die"

And the bully angle? Doesn't work for me. I was the 68 pound weakling (didn't even hit 98 pounds!) that was pushed around, locked in lockers, hung by my underwear, tormented and lonely . . . but I survived. I chose to survive! And look at me know: a mostly anonymous poster on a Habs board. See, we can mkae something of ourselves if we choose too.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

franko said:

disgruntled70shab said:

And it's all our fault.

My immediate thought as well, Dis.

"You're rich, I'm not; you're popular, I'm not . . . you deserve to die"

And the bully angle? Doesn't work for me. I was the 68 pound weakling (didn't even hit 98 pounds!) that was pushed around, locked in lockers, hung by my underwear, tormented and lonely . . . but I survived. I chose to survive! And look at me know: a mostly anonymous poster on a Habs board. See, we can mkae something of ourselves if we choose too.

True enough. It's all about choices. What worries me, though, is how many followers he may have influenced with his words. A quote I relate to evil in all it's forms comes to mind.

Don't rejoice in his defeat, you men.

For though the world stood up and stopped the Bastard,

The pregnant b*tch that bore him is in heat again.

Bertolt Brecht
May 6, 1945

I had to think hard as to whether to post this or not. We'll never erradicate evil from the planet. But, we must recognize the waring signs. Senseless loss of life for no reason other than to bring attention to one's self.

[franko]

I changed my sig line before reading this. I think we're on the same page. Hard not to be.

[MC Habber]

skilly said:

I think that you are saying that the US cheapens life. I disagree. There has never been a time in the history of the world where there wasn't war.

Has there ever been a war that had such pervasive media coverage of civilian deaths? I don't think it helps that the reason for the war was a lie or that it's being waged in large part against a civilian population. The US bombed Iraq throughout the 90s but I dont' think it had much effect on American society because it was rarely reported. Now we have videos (thanks to YouTube) of US soldiers shooting at unarmed civilians and talking like they're playing a video game, and every day we hear about 30 or 50 or 100 people being killed, and then the president or John McCain or someone tells us that conditions in Iraq are just peachy.

skilly said:

I am not saying that the environment doesn't influence people in some way (many experiments has proven it can) but I am saying that even if the environment put the latent thought in his head: "I hate my prof and those f*%$ers in my class .. oh look another few hundred dead in Iraq ... that's it I'll kill them" .... well it boils down to that most basic of human actions: Choice. I'd like to kill them, but I choose not to. The environment has nothing to do with that. If all variables are focused on trying to make you do a specific action, you can still choose not to do it. The fact the individual chooses to do it, shows an individual character flaw/instability that was there all along IMO.

disgruntled70shab said:

This isn't directed at you buds; it's a generalization according to me. It doesn't matter how well we prepare our youngsters or sensor our media. It won't matter how many precautions we take. This sort of thing will always be there. And it's not just a North American problem as you and skilly so accurately point out. It's global and it manifests itself in many different ways. Some are pyscho and others are well-educated.

I agree completely with both of you. There will always be disturbed people who will do terrible things, and its always their own choice. But who knows how many potential killers never killed because their sense of morality was just strong enough to stop them?

[BadCompany]

“Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”

H.L. Mencken

Its an unfortunate human fact, but study after study has shown that just about EVERYBODY has it in them to perform deeds that would be called 'evil'. Whether it's Stanley Milgram's electo-shock studies, or the Stanford Prison experiments, human psychology has taught us that Nazi Germany, My Lai, and Abu Grhaib are NOT aberrations, but innate human tendencies.

How and why these innate human traits are suppressed is really unknown. More importantly, how and why they suddenly explode out in some people, like at Virginia Tech, is even less known. Cho is not the first, or only ostracized student, or person who has been committed, or looked at because he was different. Thousands of other kids just like him walk around us every day. Why they don't go Columbine on us, while Cho did, is a mystery that science has yet to solve.

[CentreHice]

badcompany said:

“Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”

H.L. Mencken

Its an unfortunate human fact, but study after study has shown that just about EVERYBODY has it in them to perform deeds that would be called 'evil'. Whether it's Stanley Milgram's electo-shock studies, or the Stanford Prison experiments, human psychology has taught us that Nazi Germany, My Lai, and Abu Grhaib are NOT aberrations, but innate human tendencies.

How and why these innate human traits are suppressed is really unknown. More importantly, how and why they suddenly explode out in some people, like at Virginia Tech, is even less known. Cho is not the first, or only ostracized student, or person who has been committed, or looked at because he was different. Thousands of other kids just like him walk around us every day. Why they don't go Columbine on us, while Cho did, is a mystery that science has yet to solve.

Agree fully......and that's why you never know. People talk about flagging such individuals. Impossible in most cases.

It's like the phenomenon of the man that kills his wife and children then commits suicide. How that repeats itself over and over is beyond me.

Chronic, severe depression/bi-polar/forms of schizophrenia.....right now medication is only treatment (as it is a chemical imbalance)....but I don't know if we'll ever get a handle on it. Unless science develops a chip that regulates the affected part(s) of the brain and it's implanted at birth. (Futuristic, I know...and you just know that if science does create something like that, the ruling elite will make sure there's a feature built into it that receives the "docile" signal as well. )

Megalomania in its most diabolical sense is another issue......

[Disgruntled70sHab]

badcompany said:

“Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”

H.L. Mencken

Its an unfortunate human fact, but study after study has shown that just about EVERYBODY has it in them to perform deeds that would be called 'evil'. Whether it's Stanley Milgram's electo-shock studies, or the Stanford Prison experiments, human psychology has taught us that Nazi Germany, My Lai, and Abu Grhaib are NOT aberrations, but innate human tendencies.

How and why these innate human traits are suppressed is really unknown. More importantly, how and why they suddenly explode out in some people, like at Virginia Tech, is even less known. Cho is not the first, or only ostracized student, or person who has been committed, or looked at because he was different. Thousands of other kids just like him walk around us every day. Why they don't go Columbine on us, while Cho did, is a mystery that science has yet to solve.

There are those who believe that reason breads insanity. Quite frankly, I don't know if I'd want to understand why people sometimes behave the way the do. There are just too many combinations.

I had a very good friend overseas who was a phenomenal chess player. He was vying for a national title one year and something snapped during the tournament. He ended up in the hospital for 2 weeks. Again, too many combinations.

Figuring out problems is a tad different than trying to understand why some people view the world the way they do ... mathematicians don't generally go insane ... but, chess players can.

Cheers.

[duster]

You make an interesting point Dis.

imho, Reason is a narrow system swollen into a quasi-religious ideology. Like most religions, it presents itself as the solution to the problems it has created. There is something inherently insane in that.

[MC Habber]

centrehice said:

Chronic, severe depression/bi-polar/forms of schizophrenia.....right now medication is only treatment (as it is a chemical imbalance)....but I don't know if we'll ever get a handle on it.

And yet, the vast majority of people who suffer from those problems don't commit murder.

disgruntled70shab said:

Figuring out problems is a tad different than trying to understand why some people view the world the way they do ... mathematicians don't generally go insane ... but, chess players can.

To be honest, I don't really know what "insane" means, but, the Unabomber was a mathematician.

[Skilly]

disgruntled70shab said:

... mathematicians don't generally go insane ... but, chess players can.

Cheers.

Nothing to do with the topic at hand .... my wife is a mathematician, and she is insane - exhibit A, she married me. And I play chess (not very good mind you), so maybe that's the balance.

[MC Habber]

franko said:

The reason why people react differently is that it hit closer to home -- Americans were killed. And yes, we do seem to value the lives of "our own" more than those "over there"

I'm not so sure about this now. The reaction and media coverage would still have been quite significant if the events at Virginia Tech had taken place in London or Paris or Rome. Remember the Beslan school siege? That was front page news, and people here were horrified, even though it was on the other side of the world (in fact, Beslan is about 700km north of Iraq). So why is it different when it happens in Iraq? Maybe it's latent racism, or perhaps once we get the idea that this kind of thing happens all the time in a particular place (like Africa), we stop caring. I really think the media plays a huge role in this. When you hear 33 people dead, it's just a number until you learn some details about how it happened and see pictures. People tend to care a lot more when they can see how the people affected by a tragedy are like them, and if the media covered Iraq in the same way that they covered VT, I bet you'd hear a lot more vocal opposition to the war.

[franko]

machabby said:

franko said:

The reason why people react differently is that it hit closer to home -- Americans were killed. And yes, we do seem to value the lives of "our own" more than those "over there"

I'm not so sure about this now. The reaction and media coverage would still have been quite significant if the events at Virginia Tech had taken place in London or Paris or Rome. Remember the Beslan school siege? That was front page news, and people here were horrified, even though it was on the other side of the world (in fact, Beslan is about 700km north of Iraq).

Good point.

So why is it different when it happens in Iraq?

Maybe were inured to war? maybe it is seen as "senseless slaughter" more than heavily armed military?

Maybe it's latent racism, or perhaps once we get the idea that this kind of thing happens all the time in a particular place (like Africa), we stop caring.

Not sure about that . . . but then again, look at what is going on in the Darfur region of Sudan. The whole world has turned a blind eye!

I really think the media plays a huge role in this. When you hear 33 people dead, it's just a number until you learn some details about how it happened and see pictures. People tend to care a lot more when they can see how the people affected by a tragedy are like them, and if the media covered Iraq in the same way that they covered VT, I bet you'd hear a lot more vocal opposition to the war.

Ah, but the media is under the control of the right (unless you are part of the right; then the left controls the media).

The coverage of VT was over the top and not necessary . . . but it sold papers/ads. "Our own" casualties of war don't so much.

[Skilly]

machabby said:

franko said:

The reason why people react differently is that it hit closer to home -- Americans were killed. And yes, we do seem to value the lives of "our own" more than those "over there"

I'm not so sure about this now. The reaction and media coverage would still have been quite significant if the events at Virginia Tech had taken place in London or Paris or Rome. Remember the Beslan school siege? That was front page news, and people here were horrified, even though it was on the other side of the world (in fact, Beslan is about 700km north of Iraq). So why is it different when it happens in Iraq? Maybe it's latent racism, or perhaps once we get the idea that this kind of thing happens all the time in a particular place (like Africa), we stop caring. I really think the media plays a huge role in this. When you hear 33 people dead, it's just a number until you learn some details about how it happened and see pictures. People tend to care a lot more when they can see how the people affected by a tragedy are like them, and if the media covered Iraq in the same way that they covered VT, I bet you'd hear a lot more vocal opposition to the war.

Comparing VT to Iraq? That's a little over the top. I realize you are playing a numbers game; 33 civilians killed in Iraq vs 33 killed in VT. But how many times has a "civilian" walked up to a group of students at VT and blew the whole crowd to smithereens? This is the first.

In Iraq "innocent" civilians strap bombs to themselves on a regular basis. You have no idea who the civilians are and who the "civilians" are. Even Cho dressed and showed his artillery. There would be more support for civilian deaths in Iraq if the radicals were not passing themselves of as civilians .... and until we can tell the difference I'd rather the troops "shoot first, ask questions later".

[MC Habber]

skilly said:

There would be more support for civilian deaths in Iraq if the radicals were not passing themselves of as civilians .... and until we can tell the difference I'd rather the troops "shoot first, ask questions later".

I'm not gonna argue that, the point is that innocent people are dying in either case. In the aftermath of VT, people are asking how it could have been prevented: should there have been more security on campus, should there be fewer guns, or more guns, should Cho have been forced to get more psychiatric help, should violence in video games be banned, etc. Not many are talking about how we could have prevented the civilian deaths in Iraq, despite the fact that they are a direct result of the US invasion. I'm not just talking about US soldiers killing civilians (accidentally or not), I'm talking about the widespread violence and chaos that was NOT occurring under Saddam.

Innocent people in Iraq have to deal with another event like VT (or worse) almost everyday, so you're right, comparing VT to Iraq would be over the top. We got a small taste of what it must be like to live in Iraq.

[MC Habber]

franko said:

The coverage of VT was over the top and not necessary . . . but it sold papers/ads. "Our own" casualties of war don't so much.

It would be difficult to put this to the test, but I'm not convinced that detailed coverage of life and death in Iraq (or Darfur, or Somalia, or ...) would sell any fewer papers. Maybe the will to print it isn't there other reasons.

[franko]

machabby said:

I'm talking about the widespread violence and chaos that was NOT occurring under Saddam.

Violence and chaos has been documented; just on a different level. It was not seen because Saddam just killed his opponents and buried them in mass graves.

Innocent people in Iraq have to deal with another event like VT (or worse) almost everyday, so you're right, comparing VT to Iraq would be over the top. We got a small taste of what it must be like to live in Iraq.

We have no idea what it is like, and what it was like. Next week VT will be forgotten except as a footnote; the "conflict" in Iraq is years away from resolution -- it ever.

I guess the question continues to be "do we cut and run or do we stay the course"? [that's the royal "we"] If we say "OK, guys, we've started the process, finish it yourselves" then total civil war breaks out and the country never recovers. If we stay the course, then this uncil war continues and the country may or may not eventually recover.

A mistake to go in in the first place? Looks that way. A mistake to leave right now? I think so, but I haave no definitive answer.

[franko]

machabby said:

franko said:

The coverage of VT was over the top and not necessary . . . but it sold papers/ads. "Our own" casualties of war don't so much.

It would be difficult to put this to the test, but I'm not convinced that detailed coverage of life and death in Iraq (or Darfur, or Somalia, or ...) would sell any fewer papers. Maybe the will to print it isn't there other reasons.

But neither would it sell more papers.

Easier to ignore if not in the papers, that's for sure. We should be embarrassed by what is going on in Sudan.

[MC Habber]

franko said:

machabby said:

I'm talking about the widespread violence and chaos that was NOT occurring under Saddam.

Violence and chaos has been documented; just on a different level. It was not seen because Saddam just killed his opponents and buried them in mass graves.

Things are much worse in Iraq now than they were before the invasion.

I guess the question continues to be "do we cut and run or do we stay the course"? [that's the royal "we"] If we say "OK, guys, we've started the process, finish it yourselves" then total civil war breaks out and the country never recovers. If we stay the course, then this uncil war continues and the country may or may not eventually recover.

That's a different question, but it seems to me that the presence of US troops is only making things worse. There aren't nearly enough troops there to have much chance of "securing" the country, but there are enough there to inspire violent opposition. The Bush administration doesn't know what it's doing, but I doubt the Dems would be much better - they seem only to be concerned with getting elected. I think a phased withdrawal is the best thing they (not we) can do, but the Democratic plan for withdrawal would leave in Iraq tens of thousands of privately contracted "soldiers."

[MC Habber]

The Blacksburg Massacre in Global Context
by John Brown and Tom Engelhardt
TomDispatch

Last Jan. 16, a car bomb blew up near an entrance to Mustansiriya University in Baghdad – and then, as rescuers approached, a suicide bomber blew himself up in the crowd. In all, at least 60 Iraqis, mostly female students leaving campus for home, were killed and more than 100 wounded. Founded in 1232 by the Abbasid Caliph al-Mustansir, it was, Juan Cole informs us, "one of the world's early universities." And this wasn't the first time it had seen trouble. "It was disrupted by the Mongol invasion of 1258."

Just six weeks later, on Feb. 25, again according to Cole, "A suicide bomber with a bomb belt got into the lobby of the School of Administration and Economy of Mustansiriya University in Baghdad and managed to set it off despite being spotted at the last minute by university security guards. The blast killed 41 and wounded a similar number according to late reports, with body parts everywhere and big pools of blood in the foyer as students were shredded by the high explosives." The bomber in this case was a woman.

In terms of body count, those two mass slaughters added up to more than three Virginia Techs; and, on each of those days, countless other Iraqis died, including, on the January date, at least 13 in a blast involving a motorcycle-bomb and then a suicide car-bomber at a used motorcycle market in the Iraqi capital. Needless to say, these stories passed in a flash on our TV news and, in our newspapers, were generally simply incorporated into run-of-bad-news-and-destruction summary pieces from Iraq the following day. No rites, no ceremonies, no special presidential statements, no Mustansiriya T-shirts. No attempt to psychoanalyze the probably young Sunni jihadists who carried out these mad acts, mainly against young Shi'ite students. No healing ceremonies, no offers to fly in psychological counselors for the traumatized students of Mustansiriya University or the daily traumatized inhabitants of Baghdad – those who haven't died or fled.

We are only now emerging from more than a week in the nearly 24/7 bubble world the American media creates for all-American versions of such moments of horror, elevating them to heights of visibility that no one on Earth can avoid contemplating. Really, we have no sense of how strange these media moments of collective, penny-ante therapy are, moments when, as Todd Gitlin wrote recently, killers turn "into broadcasters." Like Cho Seung-Hui, they go into "the communication business," making the media effectively (and usually willingly enough) "accessories after the fact" in what are little short of pornographic displays of American victimization.

Finally, articles are beginning to appear that place the horrific, strangely meaningless, bizarrely mesmerizing slaughter/suicide at Blacksburg – the killing field of a terrorist without even a terror program – in some larger context. Washington Post online columnist Dan Froomkin caught something of our moment in his mordant observation that, at the White House Correspondents Association Dinner the other evening, with the massed media and the president (as well as Karl Rove) well gathered, "the tragic Virginia Tech massacre required solemn observation and expressions of great respect, while the seemingly endless war that often claims as many victims in a day deserved virtually no mention at all." Los Angeles Times columnist Rosa Brooks took a hard-eyed look at the urge of all Americans to become "victims" and of a president who won't attend the funeral of a soldier killed in Iraq to make hay off the moment. ("It's a good strategy. People busy holding candlelight vigils for the deaths in Blacksburg don't have much time left over to protest the war in Iraq"); and Boston Globe columnist James Carroll offered his normal incisive comments, this time on "expressive" and "instrumental" violence in Iraq and the U.S. in his latest column. He concluded: "Iraqi violence of various stripes still aims for power, control, or, at minimum, revenge. Iraqi violence is purposeful. Last week puts its hard question to Americans: What is the purpose of ours?"

Sometimes, in moments like this, it's actually useful to take a step or two out of the American biosphere and try to imagine these all-day-across-every-channel obsessional events of ours as others might see them; to consider how we, who are so used to being the eyes of the world, might actually look to others. In this case, John Brown, a former U.S. diplomat, one of three State Department employees to resign in protest against the onrushing war in Iraq in 2003, considers some of the eerie parallels between Cho's world and George's. Tom

The Cho in the White House

An ex-diplomat considers the world and Virginia Tech
by John Brown

Americans rushed to unite in horror and mourning in response to the mass killings in Blacksburg in a way we haven't seen since, perhaps, the attacks of 9/11. Where I live, in Washington, D.C., residents are already sporting their Virginia Tech ribbons and sweatshirts, the way so many Americans once donned those "I [heart] New York" caps and T-shirts. While media coverage has been 24/7 and fast-paced, if not downright hysterical – as is now the norm on all such American-gothic occasions from OJ's car chase on – the framing and contextualizing of the massacre/suicide at Virginia Tech has been narrow indeed.

As a former diplomat, educated to see the world through others' eyes, I couldn't help thinking about how the rest of our small planet might be taking in the Blacksburg tragedy. Despite the negligible coverage of overseas opinion about this event in the mainstream media, there did appear one comprehensive overview of how foreigners reacted to the killings – a Molly Moore piece in the Washington Post.

"Nowhere, perhaps," Moore wrote, "were foreign reactions to the Virginia shooting more impassioned than in Iraq, where many residents blame the United States for the daily killings in their schools, streets, and markets. 'It is a little incident if we compare it with the disasters that have happened in Iraq,' said Ranya Riyad, 19, a college student in Baghdad. 'We are dying every day.'"

Given my own twenty-plus years in the Foreign Service, on occasions like this I find myself looking at my own country from a non-American perspective. I must confess that, when I first saw psychopathic mass murderer Cho Seung-Hui's photographs of himself savagely pointing a gun at the camera, I was reminded not only of the violent images in our popular culture, but also of George W. Bush and his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to speak of the thrust of his whole foreign policy.

Indeed, for others on our globe, mass murder in Iraq, scenes of degradation from Abu Ghraib, CIA extraordinary rendition expeditions, and our prison at Guantanamo have already become synonymous with the U.S. government and the president, so it would not be surprising if Cho's actions and Bush's foreign policy were linked in the minds of people outside the United States. I see several reasons why, for non-Americans, a mad student and our commander in chief could appear to be two sides of the same all-American coin.

First, as his own writings and evidence from his Virginia Tech classmates attest, Cho felt unloved. A thread running through his psychological profile is that he believed the world was after him. Many abroad will remember how, in the wake of the Twin Towers tragedy, the Bush administration immediately began obsessing about "why they hate us" (whoever "they" might specifically be). Despite the sympathy the president, as the representative of the American people, received from every corner of the Earth – similar in some ways to the fruitless support efforts teachers and doctors gave Cho for his mental problems – Bush, responding only to the hate he saw under every nook and cranny, chose to react with what many overseas considered disproportionate violence.

To begin with, there was the invasion of Afghanistan. Foreigners (and perhaps some Americans) might think of it as comparable, though on a far larger scale, to Cho's first foray into killing, his early morning murder of two people, a girl he apparently felt had slighted him and a young man who evidently happened on the scene. In each case, there was then a pause while elaborate propaganda was mustered, organized, and sent off to the public to justify the acts to come. In Cho's case, what followed was his final rampage when the deranged English major killed 30 people in cold blood; in the president's, what followed, of course, was the invasion of Iraq where the casualty figures, high as they are, are not yet fully in.

The Bush propaganda campaign of 2002-2003 to convince the American people that the Butcher of Baghdad was a WMD demon reached its apotheosis in a made-for Fox News "shock and awe" spectacular over Baghdad (which was, to say the least, not well received abroad). This brutal sound-and-light show – meant to give Americans the sense of getting back at those who "hated" the U.S. by hitting them hard and mercilessly – seems, when I put on my overseas eyeglasses, eerily reminiscent of Cho's videos of himself as a mean 21st-century gunslinger, ready to shoot all those whom he dreamt did him wrong.

As someone who lived and served outside my own beloved country for so many years, a second link between Cho's actions and George W. Bush's policies appeared quite evident to me. The Blacksburg murders caused enormous grief and sadness throughout a community Cho felt had never accepted him. Distraught students have been offered counseling by the university, so shaken are some by what they experienced. The results of Bush's preemptive military strikes have been no less disruptive and unnerving, but of course on a regional, if not global stage. Tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent people have lost their lives due to his rash wars – and his administration has shown little pity for refugees from this destruction seeking shelter as best they could elsewhere. (Iraqi refugees have essentially been all but barred from the United States.)

As Cho disrupted a small, defenseless college town in Virginia that welcomed him, Bush has dislocated a whole society that was not threatening the United States. Seen from an overseas perspective, there is, as with Cho and his "enemy," something megalomaniacal as well as delusional about the president's identification of a vast Soviet-style Islamofascist foe that the U.S. Armed Forces are supposed to face down in the Global War on Terror.

Consider as well a third disturbing analogy that may not come immediately to most American minds. Like Virginia Tech, Iraq could be considered a repository of culture and knowledge. Indeed, Saddam Hussein may have been a cruel despot, but Mesopotamia, as every American high school student should know, is widely considered by historians "the cradle of civilization," the first "university" of humankind, if you will.

George W. Bush, reflecting an attitude not unlike Cho's toward a center of learning, showed not the slightest concern or respect for the traditions of a country whose achievements have so enriched the history of humankind. Indeed, when the Baghdad National Museum was pillaged (along with the National Library and the Library of Korans) soon after the American troops took the capital, the American "liberators" simply stood by; while the secretary of defense, reflecting on the catastrophe, offered the now infamous comment, "Stuff happens."

Finally, Cho's suicidal assault on a college community might bring to mind the thought that Bush's assault on Iraq has been no less suicidal – not for himself personally but for the United States as a whole. Bush's militarism and "bring 'em on" mentality helped create an atmosphere conducive to violence that Americans inflict not only on others, but also upon themselves, leading to what might be seen abroad as a kind of perpetual national suicidal condition, examples of which appear all too frequently, including in Blacksburg, Va.

Bluntly put, overseas the U.S. government (and, by association, the country as well) – thanks in large part to Bush and his foreign policy – is now widely considered the Cho of our world, despite the often risible efforts of Karen Hughes, the administration's Image Czarina, to improve America's international standing through what she calls the diplomacy of deeds. The fact of the matter is that the president's deeds have led other countries to see our government, in its aggressive unilateralism, as unreliable, if not deranged; obsessed beyond all reason with putative enemies and globe-spanning organizations of terrorists that despise us; ready to respond with unjustified violence to any perceived slight; unwilling to listen to, or accept, advice; and unconcerned with the consequences of what it does, even when this results in widespread death and destruction in one of the birthplaces of civilization, where Bush and his top officials now pride themselves on their latest accomplishment, a military "surge" that only seems to further encourage mass murder.

Regrettably, I fear that, after more than six years of George W. Bush, Baghdad and Blacksburg are, to many on our planet, not that far apart. Woe to the diplomat who has to explain us to the world today.

www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=10866