Letters to the Editor

Send Letters to mr-ed@webleyweb.com

[Letters to the editor are welcome on any and all subjects. To ensure their acceptance, please try to keep them under 500 words. Sign your letter in the text body with your name and e-mail address as you wish them to appear.]

Letter from Doug Heard

Letter from David Langley

Letter from Doug Heard

In response to William Stone's "Professional Paranoid, Part II" [http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe237-20030907-03.html]

Of the 4 terrorist incidents you listed:

• The World Trade Center bombing of 1993.
  
• The Murrah Building bombing of 1995.
  
• The Olympic Park bombing of 1996.
  
• September 11 attack on WTC towers, Pentagon, and Flight 93

only two are terrorist acts.

There is no such thing as domestic terrorism. There is a name for what you are calling terrorism and it is revolutionary. When someone or a group of someones attacks their "own" government or an occupying government through attacks on government employees, government buildings, or government sponsored events, or even government supported businesses that is called a revolution. Good or bad revolution it is revolution not terrorism.

John Brown, the Whiskey Rebellion, even the Wobbly attacks on the railroads in the 30's are acts of revolution not terrorism. That has to include Murrah and the Olympic Park.

I don't disagree with your conclusions just your facts. The acts of terrorism are even less than you say. Even the attack by the Puerto Rican on McKinley was revolution not terriorism.

If it is your government or an occupying government that you are attacking your are a revolutionary not a terrorist. An IRA attack against the US government would be terrorism, an IRA attack against Great Britain would be revolution.

The government calls revolution terrorism to paint the revolutionary with tarred brush. Because in this country it would be hypocritical to attack the idea of revolution.

In liberty,

doug heard
[email protected]

Back to the top

Letter from David Langley

Well, once again the Pledge has come into the forefront. Texas now wants all schoolchildren to say this odd little chant written by congress critters or face the consequences. (Of course, they're a little evasive about what those might be.)

What bothers me most about the whole hoopla is that both sides focus on the two words "under God" when screaming back and forth. I personally don't find it offensive that those words were added, but I also don't have much trouble understanding the viewpoints of others.

What truly bothers me is that everyone seems to skip over two words that appear almost immediately afterwards.

Am I the only person who finds it ironic / hypocritical / repulsive that people are being forced to pledge allegiance to a country "with liberty"?

David Langley
[email protected]

Next to advance to the next article

Table of Contents to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 238, September 14, 2003