I will not interfere with any comments unless you ask for it. This is as well for the previous post, or any posts that will follow.
Can terrorism even be crueler, then it already is? That is a good question, and I don't know if I have any answer on it that is complete.
There will be those who say that the Europeans know nothing about terrorism. Yet when Bush mentioned that when speaking about it, many in Europe were angry, because they thought (and were right too), that he did not know what he was talking about. The difference is that although Europe has a history filled with conflicts, civil wars, guerrillas and terrorism as well as peaceful periods, none of the terrorist attacks from the past 25 years was on the same scale as 9/11.
The terrorist attack of 9/11 was on a scale bigger then most European attacks. Even the one at Lockerbie wasn't that big or devastating. I can remember being a kid and the bloody attacks of a criminal group in Belgium, and I can remember not traveling with school to Paris (France) because of the fear of bomb attacks, and the same for London. This is around 10 years ago. And there has been for a long time the IRA and the ETA who were active there.
Recently I read here on one of the blogs of one of the members about a crueler form of terrorism. Terrorism can be crueler then it already is depending on the weapons used, and how many casualties. Here however the weapons used were those they often use in Iraq. The cruelty lies not in the fact of the weapons used, but of the person who used them.
I am not one 100% certain anymore but I thought it was a person with Down's Syndrome who was talked into doing that. He couldn't let the explosives detonate himself, other people could do that.
Article comments