Absolutely
And I find that quite curious, that terrorists don't resort that much to arson
I mean imagine the following, a dozen of small cells, across a given country, comprised of let's say 3 to 5 committed individuals, loosely connected, and one night, bam, they all start to set buildings on fire, like idk, tax office, post office, super market, libraries, you name it, forests also
Pfffff
The potential for destruction is massive, and the risks of getting caught or noticed, are much smaller than with firearms or explosives
It's just bizarre terrorists don't resort to it, while they called for it, but nobody claimed the latest fires (notre dame, california, etc)
Bizarre. Even if they were to go with explosives they could add some type of accelerant to it. That way anybody not killed in the initial blast, but stunned and trapped in rubble, would burn. Plus there's the added property damage.
Might be because most people plotting terrorist attacks come from countries where the majority of buildings are entirely stone. Not as effective there.
I'm pretty sure arson works on every building roughly the same
Even if the building is mostly made of stones, you still have the roof, and it's usually made of crap that burns
Needless to mention matresses, curtains, tv set, furnitures etc
Anyway, even if the building doesn't collapse or burn entirely because of the fire (let's say it's a cube of concrete only, and nothing else inside), you still have that nasty black smoke that renders it uninhabitable
(post is archived)