The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

***

Yes, thank you for proving my point. I'll take this as a concession you were incorrect earlier :)

The "or" in the above definition would say that it can either be against people or property.  That Ayers chose property as a target doesn't eliminate him from being a terrorist since he also fits the rest of the definition "to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

I'd call him a domestic terrorist.

Jeff Gillmer wrote: It's just a shame that you've decided wrong.  : )

HA!  I could say the same about you, my friend!

"Yes, thank you for proving my point. I'll take this as a concession you were incorrect earlier :)"

No, you can interpret that as me hitting the wrong key and accidentally posting while I was cutting and pasting quotes for reference. See my edited post for clarification.

Knut, any other hoops you care to jump through rather than just admit you were incorrect?  Seriously, is just admitting you were wrong that difficult?  Terrorism includes acts of violence commited against people and property.  William Ayers' actions rightly earned him the label "terrorist."

From the FBI:

There is no single, universally accepted definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)

Domestic terrorism refers to activities that involve acts dangerous to human life** that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

** Although it doesn't specifically mention property, is there anyone who is going to dispute that blowing up building is dangerous to human life?

"Knut, any other hoops you care to jump through rather than just admit you were incorrect?  Seriously, is just admitting you were wrong that difficult? "

I don't know. Is it?

Did you see the reference to the USLC above?

I'm simply questioning the use of the term "terrorism" when applied to pure property damage, where it's not intended to be anything other than property damage and no people are targeted. Especially when it's lumped together with the kind of terrorism where people (noncombatants/ civilians specifically) are deliberately injured or killed (or threatened with injury or loss of life.)

Some animal rights activist throws red paint on some rich lady's fur and it's terrorism? Some kid spraypaints a vague political statement on the side of a subway train and he's a terrorist? Some guy throws a brick through the window of a public building and he's a terrorist? Someone pours sugar in a policeman's gas tank and he's a terrorist?

I realize there's a difference in scale between these crimes and blowing up a building, but the difference in scale and intent between what Ayres did and what Osama Bin Laden or even your average suicide bomber does is even larger.

The presentation of Ayres as a terrorist in this campaign plays on the fact that when you say "terrorist" people think "Osama Bin Laden", "World Trade Center" and "3000 dead."
If instead it went : "Obama peripherally knew this guy in Chicago who 40 years ago bombed government and military buildings to protest the Vietnam War, but who never hurt anybody and never got convicted of anything and is now a pillar of society and a respected English Professor."  People would go "So? Why are you telling me this?"

This wide and tenuous definition of "terrorism" is used to pass off property damage as equivalent to mass murder. A form of sabotage, certainly, criminal, most definitely. But it's not as if it is inarguably "terrorism."

Terrorism, since the term began being used in something similar to its modern usage with the French Revolution over 200 years ago, has overwhelmingly described violence against people, civilians specifically.  Pretty much the only ones to use it to describe pure property damage is the FBI and certain regimes with a democracy deficiency.

Now, it seemed rather harmless there for a while, using (for instance) the term "eco-terrorist" to describe protesters that sabotaged machines to prevent logging and the like, but once the word "terrorist" got reinvigorated by 9/11, it should not be used that broadly.  

When Republicans refer to Ayres as a "Terrorist", do you really think they're unaware that a lot of people will interpret it to mean that Ayres killed people? That he's some homicidal maniac who indiscriminately killed and terrorized people? Which is not the case.

The word "terrorist" is used in this campaign because people interpret it to mean exactly what I say it means. Committing violence against people or threatening to committ violence against people. Propert damage? Please, people don't give a damn about property damage.

Take the word "vandal". In modern parlance it means someone who willfully destroys property. The definition you seek to give to the word "terrorist" so as to fit Ayres is contained within the word "vandal" with no ambiguity of murder or injury.

"Obama associates with Vandals" . Try that on for size. People wouldn't bat an eyelid (as long as they know the word) . And the McCain camp would never use that word, even though it is more precise as to what we can all agree that Ayres did. Because they want the part of the word "terrorist" that doesn't fit Ayres.

See. Is that so difficult?