posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 06:25 AM
I think the most terrifying thing about children being taken hostage isn't that they'll be scared, but that they won't be, and will be in danger
because of not being scared. Why should they think that the big boy with the shiny stick is going to hurt them (NB - not saying small children are
stupid, that's just the way I thought when I was a small child) and so when they've been told to stay still and sit down and not talk or whatever,
eventually they want to eat, or go to the loo, and up they get and start heading towards what they want, and... well. it doesn't bear thinking
I can never understand the reasoning in taking a small child hostage. As much as I'm the first to admit that small children are amoral terrors with no
care for who or what they hurt, they're generally too small to do any real damage (to humans) and even if they do they rarely intend it, so what is
his problem with children?
(not supporting hostage taking with non-children, but taking adults hostage does seem less of an act of cowardice and more of an act of misdirected
EDIT: the thing with throwing chairs is, women can do it just as well with pre-school chairs as men can, and it only really works if the hostage taker
isn't using keeping a small child close at hand as a deterrent to such activities.
edit on 13/12/2010 by TheWill because: (no reason