- 22 Apr 2013 03:36
#14219545
The weapon of the terrorist is the bomb, or as some have now taken to calling it the IED. We saw this oh too recently in Boston, but the olympic park bombings, the unabomber, the IRA among so many others all used the bomb as their method of making a statement. But why explosives? The bombs in boston were crude they killed only 3, yes they wounded more than a hundred but as far as the death toll was concerned it was hardly massive. That tends to be true of alot of bombings in the West a big bang but the death toll is never normally too high (there are of course some very notable exceptions). So why is their use so prevelant? Optimism? Is there something about an explosion that makes a statement just clearer? Because it's the done thing if you are a terrorist? In most cases of terrorism the terrorist has access to the other popular killing tool, the gun. Now as the attacks on mumbai showed when given a little planning they can carry a far greater death toll. But still the weapon of choice remains for the most part to be the bomb regardless of it's actual effectiveness.
The gun rampage on the other hand seems to be the activity of choice for the homegrown crazy, columbine, dunblane, viginia tech, aurora and sandy hook are among the many. So why aren't terrorists doing similar? Nothing seems to be stopping them from walking into schools, cinemas, workplaces with firearms and unloading.
We know the boston bombers were heavily armed but they opted not to use these firearms against the public.
So what is the logic at play here?
The gun rampage on the other hand seems to be the activity of choice for the homegrown crazy, columbine, dunblane, viginia tech, aurora and sandy hook are among the many. So why aren't terrorists doing similar? Nothing seems to be stopping them from walking into schools, cinemas, workplaces with firearms and unloading.
We know the boston bombers were heavily armed but they opted not to use these firearms against the public.
So what is the logic at play here?