I've seen nothing to suggest that the actions of Ayers constituted terrorism. Were they criminal? Yes. Were they treasonous? Possibly. But they weren't terrorist, and this is an important distinction. I'm surprised no one else is making it.

so, the weather men were not a terrorist organization?

trying to blow up U.S. governement facilities isn't terrorist? How do you figure that?

just because he was shitty at his job does not negate his intentions...

Torment -- I'm not sure where this argument is taking you. Certainly it's not going to help Obama. Even if we concede your hair-splitting definitional point, we're still left with the problem of him associating with a treasonous criminal.

To me the Ayres issue speaks of much larger concerns: Ayres, the son of a prominent family, was able to avoid conviction for his crimes and have a second act as a college professor and pillar of the community. Clearly very few people charged with violent crimes get to follow this trajectory.

But the effort of the McCain people to suggest that Obama is suspect because he, like everyone else in Chicago's civic establishment, associated with Ayres is a sign of desperation. By their token, I guess the next time I'm asked to serve on some kind of community board I'll need to ask for criminal background checks on all the members. Otherwise, who knows what I'll be accused of down the road!

I think this quote from Ayers is apropos:

"Terrorists terrorize, they kill innocent civilians, while we organized and agitated. Terrorists destroy randomly, while our actions bore, we hoped, the precise stamp of a cut diamond. Terrorists intimidate, while we aimed only to educate. No, we're not terrorists."

If you disagree, let me ask you this: Were the Contras terrorists?

I think the Greenwich Village explosion is evidence enough that the group was far from benign. Damaging buildings and statues is one thing (and bad enough), but they clearly had intention to kill in this case. I haven't seen anything to tie Ayers directly to this (though his girlfriend(?) was killed in the blast, I believe), but unless the bomb was to be targeted at civillians, it still wouldn't have amounted to terrorism. And Ayers cannot be held responsible for anything ever done by the Weather Underground.

Lizzie:

Torment -- I'm not sure where this argument is taking you. Certainly it's not going to help Obama. Even if we concede your hair-splitting definitional point, we're still left with the problem of him associating with a treasonous criminal.

To me the Ayres issue speaks of much larger concerns: Ayres, the son of a prominent family, was able to avoid conviction for his crimes and have a second act as a college professor and pillar of the community. Clearly very few people charged with violent crimes get to follow this trajectory.

But the effort of the McCain people to suggest that Obama is suspect because he, like everyone else in Chicago's civic establishment, associated with Ayres is a sign of desperation. By their token, I guess the next time I'm asked to serve on some kind of community board I'll need to ask for criminal background checks on all the members. Otherwise, who knows what I'll be accused of down the road!

Does anyone else have problems trimming the quoted portions? Is this a FF issue?

Anyway, not an attempt at helping Obama. I think it's an important distinction. I think the 'terrorist' label gets used too often for political purpose because of it's imagery of blowing up women and children. And in this case, especially, it's being used to associate Obama with muslim terrorists.

These distinctions are important. Even in cases like the attack on the USS Cole.

SUPERHEATED:

just because he was shitty at his job does not negate his intentions...

In the bombings he took credit for, the targets were warned before the bombs went off. The Greenwich Village attempt is far more troubling, but assuming it wasn't targeted at civillians--and this is a fair assumption--it was still not terrorism. And I've not seen anything that ties him directly to it (just because his gf was involved does not mean she wasn't part of a more militant subset that was more violent.) I'm not advocating that he be revered. He should have gone to prison. But that doesn't make him a terrorist.

look, you dont have to kill to be a terrorist..he was unsuccesful in his attempts..butyou beleive what you like, thats what makes this country great...

Bondsman:

trying to blow up U.S. governement facilities isn't terrorist? How do you figure that?

No, it doesn't. Given the stated reasons for the actions, it makes his actions treasonous and him a traitor in that vein. (I think it's important to note that it does not make him a traitor in the same sense as, for example, Adrich Ames, as Ayers was not betraying his countrymen--at least, not in principal).

SUPERHEATED:

look, you dont have to kill to be a terrorist..he was unsuccesful in his attempts..butyou beleive what you like, thats what makes this country great...

No, you don't. But terrorism is a tactic, and I've seen nothing to suggest that the bombings constituted terrorism.

Again, let me ask you: were the Contras terrorists?

Webster's Collegiate Dictionary-11th edition-defines "terror" : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) comitted by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands....

Illinichief:

Webster's Collegiate Dictionary-11th edition-defines "terror" : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) comitted by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands....

From Wikipedia:

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion."[1] There is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.[2][3] Most common definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants. Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war.

And:

2. UN Resolution language (1999):"1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed; 2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res.51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism)

Emphasis mine.

Meant to bold "calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public" from the UN resolution.

Seems to me that I had another dictionary(maybe an earlier Webster's) which defined terrorism something along the lines of "a systematic campaign of violence in support of a political program", but I'm not sure. If it was Webster's, I have to wonder why they changed.