Worse Things Than Terrorism?
You'd think that deliberately running over and killing scores of people with a lorry in a busy city centre would, in itself, be heinous enough crime. I certainly do. Apparently though, the British tabloids seem to be claiming that he committed an even worse offence: using his mobile phone whilst behind the wheel. Among the ghoulish details which the press like to spread across their front pages in the wake of any given tragedy, were sensational claims about how they were going to reveal te selfies and tweets the driver of the truck involved in the recent terror incident in Nice made from behind the wheel. Now, as I didn't bother reading the actual stories themselves, I'm not clear whether he was doing this before or during his murderous rampage. But the implication seemed to be that it was during. No wonder he ran over so many people if he was texting or tweeting on his phone while engaged in a terror attack!
Now, I agree that people who use their mobile phones whilst driving are criminals of the worst kind - utterly irresponsible morons with no regard for the safety of others who are arrogant enough to believe they have sufficient intelligence to multi-task - but I'm not sure that their actions are actually worse than a terrorist attack. But Hell, I'm not a tabloid journalist, so what do I know? Of course, if he was using his phone at wheel, it raises the possibility that what happened in Nice was less a terror attack than reckless driving. Or, bearing in mind the various reports that the driver was on medication for, amongst other things, depression and a drinker, it could be a case of driving whilst hopped up and inebriated/ But he was a Muslim, so we all have to jump to the terror conclusion. Plus, of course, we had ISIS claiming, some time after the event, that he was one of their 'soldiers'. Mind you, ISIS will claim responsibility for just about anything these days: if a vaguely Arabic man farted in a crowded lift, they'd claim it as a chemical attack in the name of the 'Caliphate'. I suppose that it's a reflection of the time we live in that the immediate reaction to any violent ibcident is to label it a 'terror attack'.
Now, I agree that people who use their mobile phones whilst driving are criminals of the worst kind - utterly irresponsible morons with no regard for the safety of others who are arrogant enough to believe they have sufficient intelligence to multi-task - but I'm not sure that their actions are actually worse than a terrorist attack. But Hell, I'm not a tabloid journalist, so what do I know? Of course, if he was using his phone at wheel, it raises the possibility that what happened in Nice was less a terror attack than reckless driving. Or, bearing in mind the various reports that the driver was on medication for, amongst other things, depression and a drinker, it could be a case of driving whilst hopped up and inebriated/ But he was a Muslim, so we all have to jump to the terror conclusion. Plus, of course, we had ISIS claiming, some time after the event, that he was one of their 'soldiers'. Mind you, ISIS will claim responsibility for just about anything these days: if a vaguely Arabic man farted in a crowded lift, they'd claim it as a chemical attack in the name of the 'Caliphate'. I suppose that it's a reflection of the time we live in that the immediate reaction to any violent ibcident is to label it a 'terror attack'.
1 Comments:
Yes, because ISIL/ISIS/Daesh/whatever are cartoonish, one-dimensional villains from some 80s action film, they claim responsibility for everything evil in the world.
It's like they flip through the crime page in local papers and then call in claiming responsibility. "We trained the drunk driver who ran over your dog!"
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home