Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ärketrollmannen
I wonder if they actually wanted to kill a lot of people or if that is a sideeffect.
|
Well, a lot of people have said "they could have killed more people" which seems reasonable if you look at compared to the Madrid/New York events. But I think it might also be over-estimating the skill / ability to control things on the behalf of those responsible.
One of the things I always felt about 9/11 was how fortunate the bombers were. Any number of things could have happened (e.g. one of the Twin Tower's headed plane hijacks failed, the buildings didn't collapse, the air-force shot them down, etc) which would have made their plan dramatically less sucessful (in terms of numbers killed).
Now, it could be that the organisers of such events plan in such meticulous detail that they can see every outcome, but it seems likely that you'd be thinking "Well, we'll put three bombs on the Underground, used by three million people every day, and explode 'em at rush-hour - that's bound to kill quite a few people" rather than specifically targetting a number of casualities.
As I understand it, a couple of trains crashed at Kings Cross, and since those trains carry hundreds of people at rush hour, you can easily imagine how the death-toll could have been much higher.