The component of instilling fear is essential to terrorism. Without that, in terms of destroying property, there is instead vandalism.

See Black's Law Dictionary:

vandalism, n. 1. Willful or ignorant destruction of public or private property, esp. of artistic, architectural, or literary treasures. 2. The actions or attitudes of one who maliciously or ignorantly destroys or disfigures public or private property; active hostility to anything that is venerable or beautiful.

terrorism, n. The use or threat of violence to intimidate or cause panic, esp. as a means of affecting political conduct. terroristic threat. A threat to commit any crime of violence with the purpose of (1) terrorizing another, (2) causing the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation, (3) causing serious public inconvenience, or (4) recklessly disregarding the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.

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?

********
I'm calling BS on this, Knut.

Planting a bomb inside of an occupied building or in a public park (both of which Ayers and his cronies did) is far from mere "vandalism". That's like saying wildly firing bullets into a crowd is just littering.

Planting a bomb in a public location is, by definition, an act of terrorism and an attempt to kill other people. Ayers is fortunate (or perhaps, unfortunate in his mind) that no person wandered into the areas where he planted bombs -- as certainly could have happened.

Having said that, Barack Obama shouldn't be linked to these terrorists in any way. He has rightly condemned Ayers and explained that their association was cursory at most. But in defending Obama, let's not pretend that Ayers and his ilk were somehow misunderstood folk heroes. They were terrorists, plain and simple.

"Obama is a ... young black Hitler..?"

Maybe it was the giving a speech in front of cheering Germans...?  ; )

I don't put much stock in "guilt by association" as a barometer of a candidate (or a person for that matter).  Often people find themseleves associated with persons who have very diverenget political, moral or ethical views but there is an issue about which both care that brings them together.  Certainly I don't find that a basis for judging one's character. 

As for Ayers I think its incontrovertible that he was a terrorist.  I also have read where he has stated that he regrets what he did but he's not going to say the reasons why he did those things were wrong* -- and I think thats the distinction that gets things confused. 

Clearly, Obama had a relationship with a person who had a checkered past -- and I do think Obama downplayed that relationship.  But I don't think having committed a criminal act is a basis, per se, to disassociate with someone. So I don't find the Ayers connection very interesting or relevant. 

*To this point I've also read that he infamous 9/11/2001 article in the New York Times, which forms the basis of Hannity's rants of Ayers being unrepentent, contained characterizations of his comments that Ayers disputed within days of publication.

http://cbs2.com/local/Sarah.Palin.mannequin.2.849299.html

To the best of my knowledge Ayers (or the other Weathermen) were never described as "terrorists" back in the day they were criminally active.  Although it's technically a correct word to use, using it extensively to describe him smacks of deliberate attempts to subtly invoke people's fears that Obama is foreign or a Muslim or an enemy agent. 

More likely thank not Ayers and his lot would have been described as "radicals."  To add to Jason's point, note also -- listen to Hannity or Levin and you will hear each of them brandish the term "radical politics" regarding Obama.  In this case using the word "radical" in lieu of "liberal."  Ayers is a radical; Ayers is a terrorist; Obama is radical; Obama is . . . .  finish the connection. 

I also have read where he has stated that he regrets what he did but he's not going to say the reasons why he did were wrong* -- and I think thats the distinction that gets things confused. 

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

That's a big part of what bugs me about Ayers. He's never fully apologized - his "apologies," as they were, read more like half-hearted rationalizations than a real mea culpa.

I also read the infamous New York Times article and I came away with the impression Ayers was saying "We may have gotten a bit carried away, but our hearts were in the right place." But what he should've been saying was, "Good grief, what were we thinking? I deeply regret placing anyone's life in jeopardy."

So that's why I'm unable to get past Ayer's violent past. Forgiveness requires true, unequivocal contrition, something Ayers has not yet offered. He needs to say "I'm sorry," not "I'm sorry, but...."

So that's why I'm unable to get past Ayer's violent past. Forgiveness requires true, unequivocal contrition, something Ayers has not yet offered. He needs to say "I'm sorry," not "I'm sorry, but...."

And if Ayers were running I would totally agree with you. But I don't think that Obama knowing him be it sitting on a board or having a fundraiser at his house* is a reason to tar Obama. 

*If where and from whom candidates take money really starts to be an issue there won't be a politician in America who would get re-elected!

And, Jeff, I hadn't seen that Palin effigy, but that's just awful.

I certainly don't think such displays reflect the vast majority of Obama supporters. But I hope there is an appropriate amount of outrage about this. Such symbolic displays of violence are completely inappropriate, no matter which candidate is depicted.

Such symbolic displays of violence are completely inappropriate, no matter which candidate is depicted.

Amen to that Brother Bruce!

It's unfortunate, Geoff.  Because though many do not want to face the reality of it, there is a difference between blacks and whites in America.  Seeing someone hanging from a tree has a different historical context to blacks than to whites. 

No one wants to be hanging from a noose, but it wasn't a constant and real threat to whites - that any night they could awaken to them being dragged from bed to be hung from a tree till they are dead.  Then their bodies desicrated while people smiled for pictures.

I wish those fools hadn't done this unfortunate thing, but let's be clear here: It's does lack the historical punch of hanging an Obama effigy.