Evidence in reality: refugee terrorists versus armed local supects?

Aiming at the real problem; it's nice for politicians to beat up on refugees from terror violence. It's politics at it's best.  At the same time, they don't look at the actual evidence before they speak because these potential threats are not voters.  There are 2000 terror suspects in the US that are legally allowed to purchase guns.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/11/terror-guns.png&w=1484

So why focus on the refugees fleeing terror over the actual terror suspects that are armed?

The hypocritical meaning for the word terrorist

When you are fighting for your freedom you are a guerilla, a freedom fighter, a militiaman, a patriot, a minuteman, or whatever. Every nation has known people fighting for a just cause. By just, I refer to the greater good.

If during your insurrection, you bomb innocent civilians then that act, not against an oppressive government, is straight terrorism. You are labeled a killer or a murderer because that act takes you outside the protection of action against a government. It's straight evil, accidental or not, to kill innocents at any time for any reason.  Some can then call you a terrorist with justification.

Timothy McVeigh may have had some rationale, but his bombing was terrorism.




But now consider a proxy war.  Allies outside of your country deem you a freedom fighter and supply you with arms and ammunition. You are fighting a struggle for freedom with sympathetic justification.

Of course other nations align with opposite factions.

Your allies call your opponents "terrorists".  Your opponents' allies call your faction "terrorists". Neither claim may be true. But that doesn't matter.

Labelling you a terrorist now justifies attacking your bases. It's not dependent in the proxy war context on whether or not you commit murder outside justification. It's a convenient label to justify involvement.

In fact, outside nations that attack rival factions in a local conflict are the terrorists. They are murdering women and children and blaming it on local opponents. It gets swept away in the justification that the terrorists are local.

This is the hypocrisy of the meaning of terrorist. It's relative morality cynically applied.

Convicted terrorists should get the death penalty

Every moral problem is a relative problem rather than an absolute problem. There is no moral absolute, therefore there is no absolute right way to deal with any issue, including criminals.

In the same vein, the most extreme punishment ( corporal punishment ) has been taken off the books as more people consider society more civilized in practices and principles.

But in the present day, there exists an anomaly from the another century, the terrorist.

Terrorism is anti-society. Terrorism is anti-civilized behaviour.  Terrorism should be punished with a punishment that fits the crime.  The random killing of innocents to make a political point deserves equal sentence.  Terrorism should merit the death penalty. Anyone convicted of terrorism, even attempted terrorists, should be punished by death.

Pakistan and the Taliban: Bedfellows with vipers

Pakistan's dual relationship with radical Islamic groups - officially against but secretly for -  has brought about the tragic event in Peshawar yesterday, when seven gunman ran around a school full of children of serving military personnel and slaughtered them.  It is an attack without conscience against the innocent for a reason that doesn't even make sense, publicity of their atrociousness. It does underline exactly what terrorists we are dealing with.

For many years, while the US poured money and effort into helping the Pakistani government weed out terrorists, as part of the strategy to support Afghanistan, they dithered.  Pakistan wanted to play on both sides of the game. Inciting anti-US sentiment to remain in power and taking the bribes from the US government. Blaming the CIA and protesting drone attacks, yet lining up targets. Supplying cover and safe passage to terrorists crossing into Afghanistan and back. Like stoking a fire but hoping it doesn't burn the house down around it.

The tribal region excuse is hollow, Pakistani intelligence was complicit as well. 

Trying to keep both sides happy made no one safer.  The fact is the terrorists treat the Pakistani government and people with the same contempt they treat Americans.

It should be a lesson learned that even Saudi Arabia, a country that has the same love-hate relationship with America - crushes insurrectionists without mercy.  The Saudis round up or shoot terror cells on sight.  Without regard and without compassion. Saudis meet savagery with equal savagery against radical Islam.

This is what you get for making vipers your bedfellows.  You chose not to weed them out but to accept them as fellow countrymen.  Radical Islam is only neutral and never your friend when you are giving them aid and comfort.  Once you decided to move against them, they were going to move against you.

How much easier would this have been if you had taken the aid and support of the US 5 years ago before they gave up? How many schoolchildren would be alive because TTP was out of existence?

Russell Brand is approaching Demagogue Status

▶ Ottawa Killings: Who Wins? Russell Brand The Trews (E174) - YouTube

I admire a lot of what Russell Brand stands for, his compassion for all people, the willingness to hear people of counterviews, and his wide lexicon.

Unfortunately, there is evidence of his conversion from a concerned thoughtful citizen into a demagogue.  His personality and need for attention are starting to get the better of him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue

A demagogue /ˈdɛməɡɒɡ/ (from French "demagogue", derived in turn from the Greek "demos" = people/folk and the verb "ago" = carry/manipulate thus "people's manipulator") or rabble-rouser is a political leader in a democracy who appeals to the emotions, fears, prejudices, and ignorance of the lower classes in order to gain power and promote political motives.

In the video above  he takes a template assumption - that the Canadian Conservative government is trying to steal liberties using the shootings / car assaults as the excuse.  He points out there is no proof that the crimes were radicalization-related.  He makes the comparison to other incidents that were used to justify the government-industry "hegemony" encroaching your civil liberties.

Except it's not what he thinks.  And he provides no proof to back up his claims.

 There is no rapid escalation in surveillance, sure they are rushing changes to make this particular case less likely.  But there are two opposition parties that are not going to rubber stamp an extreme legislation.  And what Russell gets wrong ("Canadians hate Stephen Harper") is that there is an election next year and Harper wants to get elected.  He knows any controversial laws will make his reelection less likely.  So there is no evidence he will risk his career on more controversy.  As Russell says, lots of Canadians hate Harper.  So why would he take the risk? On the other hand, an armed intruder got into Parliament.  Shouldn't the government do its job and review its security plan and crack down?

What Russell missed in his rush to judgment was this person was trying to get a passport and leave for Libya which is a Muslim battleground as much as Syria.  He made statements hating Canadian soldiers for war crimes overseas. And he was kicked out of a mosque for bad behaviour.  Even Muslims didn't want this guy around. Why does Russell Brand think we are claiming Zehaf-Bibeau is just another Muslim?

Russell didn't check his facts.  Muslims are forbidden from drugs use.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_ethics   Zehaf-Bibeau used $160 per day heroin and crack cocaine.  So he wasn't really a Muslim was he, Russell?  Did you check that before you concluded what happened?

Gunman prepared video prior to Ottawa attack.  In fact, police have found a video. From that report:

In a statement released Sunday evening, RCMP said they have identified “persuasive evidence” that show Michael Zehaf-Bibeau’s attack was “driven by ideological and political motives.”

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/gunman-prepared-video-prior-to-ottawa-attack-1.2071640#ixzz3HMMV62Ue

So wrong again Russell, you didn't know what you were talking about.

While Zehaf-Bibeau was mentally ill, he was a pawn of the caliphate. He thought he could make an impression wasting his life based on a call to kill infidels from caliphate (http://philosophical-ranting.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-true-nature-of-war-in-age-of-jihad.html).

No this wasn't a Muslim attack, this was a mentally-ill jihadi encouraged by the people that are in fact raping and killing, beheading infidels, exterminating religious minorities inside the Islamic State.  Does Russell Brand want to side with the caliphate?

Russell Brand, slow down the popularity train to make sure you know what you are talking about.  You are starting to sound like the anti-Fox News.  That doesn't sound very Trew-sy.

Proof by counter example: The case against gun registries

Low-tech weapon probably limited Zehaf-Bibeau’s damage

Fact: Ottawa shooter Zehaf-Bibeau was forbidden to possess a firearm;  he acquired one in any case.  It was a 1890's pump action rifle: Winchester 30-30.  No one has come forward to admit losing this hunting rifle.

So this is what is clear: a gun registry would not stop a criminal looking for a weapon.  A person that sells crack cocaine can trade that for a weapon from someone that would rather have the drugs.  There would be no reporting of the "loss" - so having this firearm registered would have solved exactly nothing.