Two indirect proofs
British politicians are arguing about blowback
wrt the latest "terrorist" attack. The concept of blowback is
and all proper politicians must reject it. Corbyn, who is unfortunately stupid in many ways, is factually correct about blowback. The current wave of "terrorism" started AFTER we began making unprovoked wars against Muslim countries in 1990, and all of its leaders state openly and clearly that they are seeking revenge and justice for our unprovoked attacks. If we will stop bombing innocent Muslim countries because they are Muslim, then Muslims will stop attempting to defend their people from our unprovoked wars. This is a fact.
= = = = =
Indirect proof #1:
Okay then. Let's take your premise as given.
Blowback doesn't exist. An unprovoked attack must be allowed to proceed without any defense by the attacked people. The attacked people must be abolished and obliterated because the attacker wants to abolish and obliterate them for no particular reason except RAW UNMITIGATED EVIL.
And let's take your OTHER premise as given. You say that Russia is attacking us without provocation. You say that Russia wants to obliterate us because Russia is evil. Let's take that nonsensical counterfactual assumption as a fact as well.
If Russia is attacking us AND if blowback is physically impossible, then our ONLY POSSIBLE ACTION is to surrender and let Russia have its way. We shouldn't be bothering to investigate and prosecute people who want to make peace with the attacker. We should instead be prosecuting all the people who express a dislike for Russia. Disliking the attacker is terrorism by definition. YOU SAID IT YOURSELF, FUCKHEADS.
= = = = =
Indirect proof #2, meta:
If logic still existed, the above sequence would be persuasive. Since nobody can possibly understand the above sequence of facts and logic, facts and logic no longer exist.