Paris terrorism attacks conveniently bring public calls for bigger government.

The tragic Paris attacks and similar attacks elsewhere happened despite huge existing police forces around the world.  That is just a matter of fact.  But despite failure of these forces to stop the attacks, dumb shits of the world call for more of what has not worked to be employed in order to stop the very thing that large government has created.

When will people learn that big government creates terrorists???  The freedom-robbing heavy hand of unrepresentative, top down control simply cannot be accepted by many.  Of course, the IS assholes should all be shot in the face for killing noncombatants.  Instead of killing government leaders who they believe have offended them as they should be doing if they think killing people is going to change anything, they are killing people who have nothing to do with it, a fact that always leaves me a bit suspicious.

Sure, attacking the people does reduce confidence in government's ability to control crime.  But for unarmed people who don't want to take responsibility for their own safety, it also leads to calls for bigger government.  So in any crime situation, you have to look at who benefits.  Does killing innocent noncombatants really help IS or does it really just help their supposed enemies (big governments)?

Folks, I don't advocate first strike violence.  So I'm not calling for any form of violence in this post.  All I'm doing is looking at things logically.  Let's say the government had crossed my personal line.  Let's say I decided that violence had become the only remaining course of action.  What would be served by me going to blow up a hotel or a mall or gunning down children at school?  NOTHING.  Not one damned thing.

So is ISIS really that illogical?  Is it really that stupid?  It does random terror.  Thinking people have to ask, "why?".

Look at the drug cartels.  They do not behave emotionally.  They kill those who are bad for business.  Sure, some innocents can die in the crossfire but when drug lords kill there is a purpose.  They kill local leaders, those very few police chiefs who cannot be bribed, prosecutors, judges, etc.  They don't just set off bombs in malls or hotels.  Drug cartels behave logically.

Logical people would not go after innocents.  Going after innocents will not change how leaders think.  Leaders don't care two shits if innocent men, women and children live or die.  The little people are nothing more than a means to an end to these elitists.  The only thing they care about is acquiring and retaining wealth and power.  Going after leaders directly will cause them to change their ways but going after innocents never has and never will.  The "random terrorism" move is thus not logical.  It is designed to elicit an emotional response by the people: spend more money on our safety.  Spend more money even if we don't have it to spend.  Rack up more debt on the credit cards right now to respond to this immediate threat.  Hint: the deeper shit the oligarchs (AKA con men) find themselves in, the bigger they are willing to go in order to save themselves from being dethroned.

So I repeat: random terrorism is not a logical course of action for someone trying to drive change and good reform.  It is however a logical course of action for someone trying to keep and increase the status quo.  It is a very logical course of action for large governments which are on the verge of implosion due to their own corrupt weight with trillions of unpayable debt hanging over their heads.

I don't know what is really going on here but unless every camel f------ ISIS member is nothing more than an uncontrolled bag of emotions, the current course of action makes no sense.  I do not believe that radical Islamists are any more emotional or stupid than anyone else in aggregate.   People are people the world over.  The fact that they appear to be behaving in emotional ways should make people wonder WTF is really going on.