Obama - First Black President

[kuronosan]

I think terrorism is just the infliction of fear or anger on a group of people for any reason.

[Maxxthepenguin]

It's my interpretation of what I've heard (I haven't worried too much about it), but in any case, it's not important. It's formative but not definitive of who Bill Ayers is now.

[Maxxthepenguin]

What does terrorism mean? Achieving goals via inflicting fear?

It's like pornography, I can't define it but I KNOW IT WHEN I SEE IT.

[Plow]

If by "paid for" he meant legally, then that's one thing. But it does seem like there are ways to make up for something other than doing time for it.

I don't personally think community service is apt repayment for the destruction and loss of life he caused, and the further he intended to cause, but ok, I get your point and can appreciate what he's done.

And what I was trying to argue is that "terrorism" is ok if the whole world agrees with it. But I guess those Second Boer War guys I posted last page were terrorists, too. Never mind then.

I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

[Kuya]

I have heard that there is a large disparity in how we define terrorism which has also been pointed out by the UN as troublesome.

[Maxxthepenguin]

To be perfectly honest, I haven't found a good definition for terrorism that doesn't include some act the US has done.

[Shuvo]

Terrorism = Violent Revolution (that failed)

[Kiro]

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.

lawl?

[Beckwin]

Because the only reason you decided he was good in the first place was that he was tied to Obama.

A fucking 2 year old can tell you didn't know his damn name before it came up in relation to Obama.

No, I didn't know Ayers by name until the campaign; only the Weathermen/Underground generally (they tend to get mentioned in history books and documentaries). So I researched him a bit, and came to my own conclusions. I certainly view him more favorably than Obama does, and Hillary as well (who up until the Wright/Ayers/3 AM/out of touch bullcrap I had a lot of respect for in the campaign season). Didn't know who the fuck Jeremiah Wright was either, but I read up and found he's a bit of an attention-whore and a bit paranoid but I also found his biography and some of his views/causes to be pretty interesting. I didn't know much about Cindy McCain when I heard about her drug addiction/skimming scandal, and actually developed a degree of sympathy for the woman in spite of the crude anti-McCain jokes I'd make in the Palin topic. I read up on McCain as well, finding approval and disapproval in places I didn't always expect to.

but i guess just cuz hes tied to obama it means i automatically like him, just like i luv Tony Rezko rite?

Do you have a point?

Here's the problem. While Obama and Ayers may carry the same message of taking the future into your own hands and changing it for the better, Obama's message is far more pacifistic, and drawing hope and inspiration from Ayers, who has nothing to offer but his own militant past, is ideological double-dipping. "Yes! The man with the Olive Branch is right!" "Yes! The man with the dynamite is right!"

No matter how inspirational an essay he can write, his decision, even if it was 40 years ago, was diametrically opposed to the age of diplomacy and open relations that Obama's administration is supposed to usher in. I'm sorry if I don't look at pretty words as covering up a man's more violent and so far, unpaid for, legacy.

You're trying to paint an ideological divide that isn't there. There is a divide, however, between a leader's foreign diplomacy/policy and response as a citizen to domestic oppression and government atrocity. Your parallel is shaky like Michael J. Fox at best , and absofuckinglutely retarded at worst. If anything, Bill Ayers spoke more strongly against war and US intervention than Obama ever has, which I don't believe clashes with violent/destructive response to your own oppressive government that's committing massive atrocity abroad (so bad they even lost the ability to manufacture popular consent/approval, which is remarkable)- you can easily argue a stance of protecting your country, and only your country, from whatever threatens it's people (or whatever variation of social libertarianism). I can go on and on and on, but goddam that's a terrible parallel on your part- somehow equating social radicalism with neocon imperialism ("diametrically opposed to the age of diplomacy and open relations that Obama's administration is supposed to usher in"... oh, and stop acting like Obama is a total pacifist too).

To offer some clarification, I support/supported Obama because of his merit as an individual, enthusiasm for some of his policies, and that he represents a good step in the right direction to me. My personal politics/views/etc generally lie much further left. So in spite of my enthusiasm and respect for the guy, by no means do I view his policy/philosophy as some sort of pinnacle, personally.

Back to Ayers... lol Plow, you posted that article like it was going to be really damning despite being liberal, yet all it exposed was a bunch of college professors who had some mixed feelings about some of what they did. You seem to be latched on to the idea that because Ayers was a founding member he must've been the devious mastermind behind all WU actions, but I've yet to see any real evidence of that... in fact the nature of the group would defy a rigid hierarchy, in theory at least. You and Correction both seem to conveniently ignore that for 20+ years Ayers has been distinguished as an educator and community organizer/serviceperson, even earning Citizen of the Year in Chicago ffs. yeah he's still a thuggish goon terrest.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

You'd be right, if the U.S.A. had attacked and tried to take over Britain. Unfortunately for your argument, they wanted to peacefully secede.

In Boston on March 5, 1770, a large mob gathered around a group of British soldiers. The mob grew more and more threatening, throwing snowballs, rocks and debris at the soldiers. One soldier was clubbed and fell. All but one of the soldiers fired into the crowd. Eleven people were hit; Three civilians were killed at the scene of the shooting, and two died after the incident. The event quickly came to be called the Boston Massacre. Although the soldiers were tried and acquitted (defended by John Adams), the widespread descriptions soon became propaganda to turn colonial sentiment against the British. This in turn began a downward spiral in the relationship between Britain and the Province of Massachusetts.

In June 1772, in what became known as the Gaspée Affair, a British warship that had been vigorously enforcing unpopular trade regulations was burned by American patriots.

On December 16, 1773, a group of men, led by Samuel Adams and dressed to evoke American Indians, boarded the ships of the government-favored British East India Company and dumped an estimated £10,000 worth of tea on board (approximately £636,000 in 2008) into the harbor. This event became known as the Boston Tea Party and remains a significant part of American patriotic lore.

The Battle of Lexington and Concord took place April 19, 1775, when the British sent a force of roughly 1000 troops to confiscate arms and arrest revolutionaries in Concord.[50] They clashed with the local militia, marking the first fighting of the American Revolutionary War.

Very peaceful.

You understand that British money funded the first colonies, and British Navy and military protected and helped enforce law to the British settlers, right? That means it was British land, and the Americans overthrew their government. How could Great Britain tax an independent country? You're right in that they didn't attack in Great Britain itself, but they attacked its military and overthrew its government abroad. Same shit guy.

Sort of like when America moved its economy and money west with settlers it became American land.

Your stubborn refusal to face facts just to "win" an internet argument is admirable, but you're not too bright to get into an argument in which you're either ignorant of the facts or just plain refuse to acknowledge them.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Also, this:

Sons of Liberty: Patriots or Terrorists? | Early America Review Fall 96

Good read d(`-`

[Tekki]

Another good read. Already posted?

Bush Spy Revelations Anticipated When Obama Is Sworn In

[Charla]

Guys, relax. Everyone 250 years ago knew perfectly well there was no such thing as "peacefully secede". They wanted independence, they knew it would take a war, and they had neither the interest nor the ability to do anything more.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Guys, relax. Everyone 250 years ago knew perfectly well there was no such thing as "peacefully secede". They wanted independence, they knew it would take a war, and they had neither the interest nor the ability to do anything more.

That's not the argument. The argument is simply that to the colonists it was heroism and revolution, and to the British and loyal colonists it was treason and terrorism. This is in response to the "extremism is never a good thing" remark by Plow.

To which my retort was; oh yes, it can be. This current society is a product of "extremism."

All starts on page 21.

[Charla]

I think you could make a similar argument about any war, but I see what you mean now. Also, I doubt they used the word terrorism. Treason was considered quite a bit worse, after all.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

I think you could make a similar argument about any war, but I see what you mean now. Also, I doubt they used the word terrorism. Treason was considered quite a bit worse, after all.

Oh absolutely, I'm just using that particular argument regarding the view on Ayers. It's all perspective and labels, which everyone is free to have. But an objective understanding of that concept is key to intellectual conversations and progress in society, not knee-jerk reactions to ideals or actions to make a negative point, or a point at all for that matter.

[Elvis]

Terrorism is something only our enemies do. When we do it, it's called 'low-intensity conflict'.

For example:

According to Bob Woodward, William J. Casey, the former Director of Central Intelligence, personally arranged for Saudi Arabia to sponsor a car bomb attack against a Lebanese Shiite religious leader believed to be involved in terrorism. They failed and 80 people died, 200 injured - almost all civilians.

Did A Dead Man Tell No Tales? -- Printout -- TIME

American officials said recently that a car bomb attack against Sheik Fadlallah was carried out by operatives linked to Lebanese Christian security forces. The officials said they were part of a unit that had received some training from the C.I.A. earlier that year while the Administration considered plans to create a covert unit for so-called pre-emptive actions against terrorism.

That plan was dropped after members of Congress and some people in the agency questioned whether such a group could be adequately controlled. The C.I.A. told Congress it broke off relations with the Lebanese unit well before it carried out the bombing.

The links between the Lebanese bombers and the C.I.A. were reported by The Post and The New York Times in May 1985, as was the C.I.A.'s disclaimer of involvement in the attempt to kill Sheik Fadlallah.

In interviews in the last several months, three present or former Government officials said that after the C.I.A. stopped its support, Saudi Arabia financed the Lebanese unit.

Casey Reported Behind '85 Lebanon Bombing - New York Times

[Xanthu]

We interrupt this random debate with this picture of hope


Thank you

[Obev]

You're like fifteen pages late with that.

[SamanosukeShiva]

what's up with the news always saying "President Elect Obama" instead of just "President Obama"? it's like they dont even recognize him as president.

did they say this for every president too when they get elected for 1st time?