Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Bookdrunk points out some very pertinent equivocation.
Is there a reason we don't refer to some groups that use violence and the threat of violence to wage "sustained campaigns of harassment and intimidation [...] seeking to achieve their objectives by creating a climate of fear" as domestic terrorists?

As an aside, if any of these terrorists are on benefits, does that mean that the state is guilty of "fund-raising for terrorism"?

3 comments:

Guido Faux said...

'does that mean that the state is guilty of "fund-raising for terrorism"'

No - it means we are since we fund the state.

Follow the money ...

DOng said...

Is terrorising yourself a crime?

Guido Faux said...

Never misunderstandimate the warped logic of a totalitarian government.