Terrorist activities exist to influence the populace to believe that their leaders are unable to protect them. It is not about destroying significant landmarks.
Terrorists want the common people to pressure their governments to accede to the terrorist’s demands so they (the common people) can feel safe boarding a bus or going to market. Destruction of property is secondary to putting the populace in daily fear for their lives.
Exactly, terror is a tool to achieve a group’s aims. Its not an end in itself. The OP is like asking why the US has not solved its North Korea problem by unloading a sub worth on Trident missiles on Pyongyang.
My error then. When visiting, it certainly seemed to be but then we didn’t circumnavigate the whole thing either. And it seemed like the “good” parts were walled – no one is thinking “let’s blow up some random apartments” when attacking the Vatican. But I’ll defer if you say they’re not.
No intimation was made that the walls were impregnable but a barrier does complicate things in that it’s more difficult to get a vehicle inside or someone sneaking in is more noticeable. Heck, an office building with security bollards or planters is more secure than one without even if it’s not the “Great Wall of China”.
There’s also the possibility that any attack on the Vatican could change the status of various Roman Catholic majority countries from uninterested bystanders to anti-terrorism allies.
Anyone can go to VC. Its easy.
The entrance to Piazza San Pietro isn’t walled, and that’s where the vast bulk of visitors go.
It is also a whole lot easier for the islamists to blow up christian churches in majority muslim nations.
That’s different. In that case they are trying the make the country ungovernable and show that the Government does not have the ability to protect its citizens. A government they wish to overthrow.
These guys are crazy. But it’s not smart to fail to understand their motives and aim and attribute it to stupid things like a poster does above, such as a “hatred of freedom”. If you want to beat them, know them.
There’s a fairly sigfnificant police presence in St. Peter’s Square and Basilica, and you can’t drive a truck into either of them, but if you wanted to set off a bomb in a crowded and high-profile place, they would certainly present a feasible target. The Vatican museums would be another possibility.
For obvious reasons. there’s no scope for airport bombs, railway station bombs, cafe bombs, marketplace bombs, etc, and very limited scope for running people over with a truck or a car - not a lot of motorable roads in the Vatican, and that’s not where the crowds are.
So why not the piazza, the museum, the basilica? It’s a valid question, but you could equally ask why not the Uffizi in Florence, Piazza San Marco in Venice, the Duomo in Milan? Italy alone offers hundreds, if not thousands, of similar targets; if you expand your horizons to take in France, Germany, Italy, etc there are uncountable similar targets, many of them with much less policing than you find at St. Peter’s.
Force field.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why doesn’t fundamentalist islam attack fundamentalist christian?
Professional courtesy.
Not sure I’d label the RCC as fundamentalist, but it *is *a funny joke. Bravo.
Maybe arch-traditionalist would be better than fundamentalist.
This here. I think those who would commit terror attacks are aware that the worldwide response to such an attack would be an amazingly fierce and thorough one.
Wouldn’t the fact that the Vatican is so small mean it probably has more security per square mile than virtually anywhere else in the world?
Why is there a wall around the Vatican, anyway? Maybe they put it there originally to keep the terrorists out.
Because its predecessor states gave up imperialism a long time ago, so no one has any real grievances against them anymore that would motivate some to violence.
“Fundamentalism” and “Catholicism” are not two things that go together.
Cause actual Fundamentalist Christians are called Amish.
When I sang in the basilica of St.Peter as part of an American diocesan choir several years ago, the security was rather intense. We sang in one of the more private chapels, and we had to go through a security check point building outside the walls. Only one person at a time was allowed in the checkpoint building (some kind of portable). Everyone went through, including our retired bishop. It may not be quite as soft a target as you might imagine.
Terrorists don’t just kill people at random. They choose targets for a reason. What reason are terrorists going to have for attacking the Vatican? The Vatican isn’t occupying any other country; it doesn’t have any regions that are trying to secede; there’s no movement calling for a regime change.