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.

Oh yeah? So what has happened for the last ten years, exactly?

Over at the ASI, they are posting some of the winning entries of the Young Writers on Liberty. One does not want to put such keen minds off,...