Thursday, February 18, 2010

And this is "not terrorism" because . . . ?

Because it was a white guy? Because he attacked the IRS? Could someone please explain? And why do I feel like I was just introduced to Tea-bagging 2.0?

1 comment:

  1. Well, I must have been away from the computer when people were saying that it was "not terrorism" because the evidence I've seen fits my definition to a t:

    • Deliberate targeting of non-combatats or civilian facility with no military value.

    • Attacker was politically or ideologically motivated.

    • Attacker had no direct connection to a state or de-facto state military command structure.

    Watch as the teabaggers make him out to be a martyr.