The nature of terrorists

Two unrelated stories in the terrorism front:

1) On Thursday Mohamed Warsame, a Canadian citizen of Somali descent, was sentenced to about seven and a half years in prison. He’s been awaiting trial for five years on terrorism-related charges. With credit for time served, he’ll be deported to Canada next spring. He apparently attended what he contends were religious camps but the government says were terrorism camps. David Kris, a spokesman for the Justice Department, told MPR’s Elizabeth Stawicki the Warsame case serves as “a reminder of the continuing threats the nation faces.” Since the case never went to trial, we don’t really know much about the threat the nation faces, at least as it pertains to Mr. Warsame.

2)Haji Sahib Rohullah Wakil is one of the Guantanamo detainees the Pentagon says has gone back to a life of terrorism. But he often has meetings with the U.S. backed government in Afghanistan. “For six years, I was ready to go to court and defend myself. They should show the world their proof against me,” Wakil told McClatchy News. “I am ready to answer any question.”

  • GregS

    [Wish we had an 'edit' feature]

    What’s the story here?

    I can hardly see why you suggest these stories are “unrelated”. The relation is clear. You seem to be leading us to the inference that “there is nothing to fear here folks.”

    This is false,

    1) Mohamed Warsame pleaded guilty to “conspiring to support Al Qaeda”. His guilt is clear.

    2) It is also clear that Haji Sahib Rohullah Wakil is back in Afghanistan and, yes, he is working with the government. How exactly does that dissociate him from terrorism? Wakil is a high ranking member of AT UL Dava Al Qurani, an Islamic extremist group working out of the “no-go” region of Pakistan.

    How would he be any different say Gerry Adams, spokesman for Sinn Fein (The Irish Republican Army’s political wing), who “worked with” the British Government for years during “the troubles”.

    Did the fact that he negotiated with the British on a daily basis make him any less responsible for bombs that killed kids?

    So what are we suppose to fear, only those things the media leads us to fear?

    Lately, we have been inundated with fear-mongering about Global Warming.

    Every day, we hear stories about how it is “here”, “real” and “threatening”. Yet when you drill down into the stories, you rarely find the supporting science at a quality worthy of publication in Psychology Today.

    The truth is: terrorism is real, we all know that because of 9/11 and Global Warming is real because we can kind of see it through the fog of statistics.

    Yet, the media plays down one fear, and hypes the other.

    Why?

    Why not simply help the public sift through the facts and dispense with the activist conclusions?