Why the distortions.  Ayres and Obama worked together on the Annenberg Project.  If Obama would have come out at the beginning and just said that, it would be a total non-issue.  But all the things that have been uncovered leads some people to think that Obama is hiding something.  The question that remains is "why?"

************

Because then some idiot from Alaska would go around saying he "pals around with terrorists".

Oops, never mind.

As if the Republican party was ever going to let it be a "non-issue".

Now by anyones definition, I believe Ayres was a terrorist, but I don't believe Obama and him were "pals". No explanation is ever going to be good enough for some people. The fact is he explained it. If you don't like his explanation, oh well.

Dick Morris on How John McCain Could Pull Off a Final Week Upset

Intriguing excerpt:

"If the Dow continues to terrify investors and distract voters from the election, it will continue to bolster Obama's candidacy and his lead."

Distract from the election?  Since when did we have to worry about issues distracting from an election?

The campaign doesn't have anything better to offer about how McCain would be a better choice than Obama? Vague assertions that McCain can fix things because he's a reformer and a maverick don't really cut it.

No, they have a tape of Michelle Obama saying "whitey".  I read it on the internet, so it must be true.

"And, of course, just the definition of the word according to the English language:"

The same "Bartleby"reference curiously lists "terror" as "Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes." No mention of damage to property on its own.

Listen, the definition you're quoting is vague and indistinct. Which is why I referred to a more specific legal definition. Because some dictionaries just get sloppy and list usage (connotative rather than denotative meanings). And as I pointed out before, there are just a whole lot of different definitions that are given based not on what the word means but what each country or organization wants it to mean. 

The core of it is "terror", or fear . Then decent definitions of "terrorism" specify that as fear caused by violence or the threat of violence against a person (noncombatant or civilian especially). Sometimes it means that property gets damaged as well, or that civilians are targeted, but the bombing is unsuccesful and only property is damaged. So one might say damage to people or property, while targeting people.  The intent of terrorism is to injure and frighten people, not destroy property. People who go in with the intent of damaging property are vandals or saboteurs.

The Weather Underground weren't trying to scare people into agreeing with them. They actually thought that by bombing the government they would wake people up and see their side of it. And they always sent out warnings to prevent people from being caught in the bomb blast.  Their bombs were disruptive, along the lines of vandalism or outright sabotage when aimed at military installations.  All of them crimes, sure.

But the only ones who died were members of the Weather Underground, when they blew themselves up. And there is no evidence that Ayres ever had any intention of hurting people.

There's no evidence that they were even trying to intimidate or coerce through fear.  I mean, if they were, they were going about it all wrong.

Hey, we can go with your definition and say "terrorism" also means "pure property damage".  From now on, let's all say that "Osama Bin Laden is sought by the US government for the crime of extensive property damage."

Tell me you don't find it offensive when the "synonym" is used the other way?

Obama is a ... young black Hitler..?  Um.  Wait, what?

terrorist

  â€¢ noun a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Listen, a deliberately vague definition of terroism has developed, much of it thanks to groups like the FBI, that defines even people who damage logging equipment or sabotage whaling vessels as terrorists.

If this was about Greenpeace or PETA or groups of young people protesting the WTO, I think a lot more people would agree that using a definition of the word that equates these groups with Al Qaida empties the word of meaning.

Property damage with no intent to harm humans is not the same as ramming a plane into a building and killing thousands. Yet that is what people get away from the "Ayres is a terrorist" catchphrase.

Even on this board we get the "Ayres intended to kill, he just failed" line. Really? All evidence to the contrary?

Ayres committed crimes. Extreme vandalism or sabotage in war-time using explosives. If the government hadn't compromised its own case, that's something he could have been convicted of, I'm sure.  But the use of the word "terrorist" to describe him now, is not about what he did. It's about using vague definitions of a very imprecise word to find justification for suggesting he's a crazed mass murderer. In order to get at Obama.

It's spin. That's what it is.

And I think with the extended powers that law enforcement have been given to pursue "terorists", they should follow the narrower legal definitions, not the "Cop dictionary" where "looking at me funny" is an assault on a police officer and "DWB" is an actual offense . Or next you'll have a lot of tree-huggers in GITMO (if you don't already. No way to tell is there?)