No semantics, the claim in the petition (first paragraph) clearly states "directly support terrorism".
Which is what I questioned.
As for indirectly "financing terrorism", then that claim could be made against just about any business, company, employer, etc. in Australia. Even getting a taxi could see funds indirectly going towards terrorism. Sheeze, and as discussed here a few weeks ago, even the government is guilty of collecting funds that indirectly funding terrorism.
But the claim was "Directly", and the word "Directly" was deliberately used in the petition.
