What happens when “they” hit “us” again?

Niall Ferguson attempts to answer a fascinating answer in his column in the LATimes to the question “what if the terrorists had hit London?” He argues that the reaction of the world would have been a lot less sympathetic that it was after 9/11 and that many would have argued that Britain deserves it and that the attacks would have torn apart the Brits. I think that all terrorist's attacks, which follow 9/11, are going to be different not only for America, but also for the country, which is hit. 9/11 was unexpected and a great shock not only to an unprepared America, but also to an unprepared world, which had been fooled into believing that it had reached the end of history and future struggles weren't going to be existential struggles. The world has matured since 9/11 and expects more from its leaders that is it expects them not to protect them absolutely, but to fight the struggle against terrorism smartly and competently without being more dedicated to an ideology than to principles and to the protection of human lives. The problem is that since 9/11 false dichotomies and inappropriate Manichaeism have blurred the lines between rationality and irrationality and between morality, immorality, and amorality. What terrorism, in the twenty first century, shows is that in a globalized world, there are no “us” versus “them,” “here” and “there” but simply a complex togetherness threatened by the merchants of false truths and of dangerous absoluteness.