A reader writes:
If they caused undue mental anguish to the researchers, sure. Otherwise, they're vandals. But that's besides the point. Here you have two idiots smashing computers and freeing animals described as domestic terrorists several times in the article, while Joe Stack, who does actual damage to a federal building, says "that he ultimately resolved that "violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer" is suddenly a pop icon, a hero, or if not that at least 'troubled' or a victim. They are both on record as wanting to take down the government and claim that violent means are the only ways of doing so. Plain English used for some, but not others. Does one need to belong to a group to be defined as a terrorist? The disparity made me want to punch myself in the face.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to firstname.lastname@example.org.