The WU dosn't really qualify as a terrorist organization. Maximum human suffering was never one of things they worked towards.

They were called terrorists in their day and that's enough for some people.  It's BS of course.  Many "terrorist" groups from the past bear no resemblance to the narrow definition of terrorism we have had since 9/11.  I remember reading an interview with Leila Khaled shortly after the 9/11 attacks and she was appalled by the indiscriminate carnage.  The IRA used to call in warnings if they were going to let off a bomb.  Not every so called terrorist is Osama bin Laden.

i remember the ira blowing up a park in london.  horses were dead, people's lives shattered.  yeah, the ira was very gentlemanly.

That's debatable, depending on the definition you use.  An organization that tries to control behavior through violent actions is terrorist, for all practical purposes.  "Maximum human suffering" is questionable as a qualifying goal.  I think it's more important to distinguish between "terrorist" and "former terrorist".

An organization that tries to control behavior through violent actions is terrorist, for all practical purposes. 

That's a pretty broad definition, there.  If we're going to use that yardstick, then... Why has John McCain been 'palling around' with terrorists like Dick Cheney?

I don't that definition is too broad, I'm just pointing out that it's not necessarily about killing as many people as possible.  Blowing up a building is still violent, isn't it?  It still is an action intended to instill fear and alarm as a means to a political end.

The idea that the war itself is an act of terrorism has some merit, to be sure.

Obviously that's supposed to be "I don't think that definition is too broad"

I don't want to get into being an apologist for the WU. I'm ignorant of a lot of details.

Overal I think the country was little damaged physicaly. I know at the time I had little thought of personal danger from their actions.

Sure, but if the 9/11 attacks had taken place at four in the morning, killing nobody (for the sake of argument), it would still be a terrorist act.  There's a difference of degree, of course, and that speaks to its effectiveness as well.

It still is an action intended to instill fear and alarm as a means to a political end.

Kind of like 'shock and awe'?  Or the strategy of 'the surge' (which once included political and diplomatic goals)?

Again, yes, that argument can be made.

Parsing the word "terrorist" isn't going to be very convincing.  "He only blew up buildings for political purposes".  Oh, well that's not so bad, right?  It can be noted that they tried to avoid casualties, but the key point is that he mainstreamed himself into society long before he met Obama.

Palin and friends are obviously using the word because it fits in with the image of Obama as a Muslim. Words like radical would have fit but don't do enough to scare the red staters.

Maybe, maybe not.

"Our opponent ... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."

"Target their own country" isn't consistent with the 9/11 bombers, for instance.  That may be the purpose, and some listeners might make that connection, but it seems odd to use phrasing which undermines the impression you're intending to get across.

Careful there brabantio...... "An organization that tries to control behavior through violent actions is terrorist".....

Using that definition could lead easily freaked out 'leaders' into claiming that two guys robbing a bank at gun point are 'terrorists' instead of just simply bank robbers..... which could muddy the waters into eventually a parent being considered a terrorist by using spanking as a way to silence their kid (I don't suspect it mind, but it 'could' lead to that..... and that's the point, if we keep going down this slippery slope!

As for today, you are spot on in your defining a terrorist.....

Side note: Yesterday, in one of my college classes a lady who is pro-McCain and very anti-Obama (for no better reason than McCain was in the military and Obama was not).... anyways... she came up to me and said "So.... your president is a terrorist!"

I replied "Yes, George Bush is a terrorist!"

Her: "No, Osama is for hanging out with that terrorist Bill Ayers"

Me: "It's Obama. And guilt by association is a very dangerous slope to ride on"

Her: "Whatever! Barack Obama is a terrorist! You can't tell me that he did not know that guys (Ayers) past and what he did."

Me: "So what if he did? Guilt by association does not make one a terrorist! Besides, Obama was 8 years old when he did that and he later apologized for his deeds"

Her: "I don't want a terrorist being president."

Me: (Finally beginning to get a bit angry) "He's not a terrorist. But if you want to go there then McCain is a financial terrorist for hanging out with Phil Gramm and Charles Keating"

Her: "Whoever they , it's not the same, they didn't kill anyone or blow anything up"

Me: "Sure they did. Our economy! How many people did Ayers effect? A few dozen. Our economy is in shambles and that effects all 304 million of us."

Her: "Not the same! (She begins to walk away from me and into the classroom) Barack Obama is a terrorist! (This last part is heard by everyone in the class that was not privy to our exchange and a collective gasp can be heard)

Me: "Stop using childish attacks! Guilt by associationas is a childish attack!" (At this time the teacher walked in... no doubt this will resume this morning in class)

Scary that this lady, who seemed rather intelligent (until that moment) can go to school at a liberal arts school and be this out of touch with reality!

I meant use of violence for political or religious purposes, of course.

I love conversations like that.  Personally I would have said "So Obama is a terrorist because he occasionally did charity and educational work with a college professor who was part of a radical movement 40 years ago?  I guess McCain chose a traitor to be VP because she's married to a former member of the secessionist AIP, then."

So, now that the Palindrone is out there spreading blatant lies, is the Obama campaign still required to "be nice", or can they finally go after this twit?

I say it's time for them to go after this evil, vicious, nasty, sociopathic, fascist, racist, lying hate hag once and for all!  They cannot play nice with right wing lying scum like Liar Palin, nor should they!

"is the Obama campaign still required to "be nice", or can they finally go after this twit?"

I get the feeling that no matter what Obama/Biden do..... any direct attack on her will simply be used as a weapon by the corporate owned rightwing ideology against them!

In one sense McCain (or the RNC's?) picking of Palin was brilliant for the obvious, Her being part of the ticket nearly puts on all the breaks for the good guys to charge ahead and attack and if they do, it must be done carefully. (Not fair and is total BS)

But since blowhards like Rush and BillO are willing to suddenly become the defenders of women and fake being anti-sexism for the next 4 weeks and since they know their blind followers will fall for the ruse......

In every other aspect... Palin is not even close to being ready and able to handle the job! She quite literally is..... GWB in a skirt!

Perhaps I am wrong, but I have usually associated the term "terrorist" as someone who kills, randomly, innocent people to make a statement for a cause.  Obtaining a "result" is not always clear.  Sometimes it is just anger at a slight or another group with which they disagree or just for the enjoyment of killing.  Compromise is not an option.  Get out of the Middle East, stop supporting Israel, release other convicted terrorists, restore a former government, disagreement with a policy, either local or national, etc. are some of the "reasons" for murder.  I don't see Mr. Ayers fitting these descriptions as pertains to murdering innocent people.

If someone bombs abortion clinics, is that terrorism, even if nobody dies?  That would seem to be a violent act in pursuit of a cause, where "compromise is not an option".

Palin can say whatever she wants, as long as she then has the guts to back it up in a press conference. Her achilles heel is the followup question, she has no depth, no intellectual understanding of the world at large, thus, can't respond except with memorized snippets.

Bottom line, she is afraid, plain and simple.

Let'snote that the fascist racist theocratic lightweight hate hag Liar Palin's husband is a member of the pro-Alaska seperatist group "Alaska First", and that Palin attended the seperatist group's convention last yer, and that she sent them a video message this year.

Next, Liar McCain has welcomed the support of G. Gordon Liddy, who advocated American domestic right wing terrorists shooting federal agents in the head, and there's his Watergate burglary convinction, AND Liddy once reportedly advocated the murder of one of Nixon's political enemies. 

An organization that tries to control behavior through violent actions is terrorist, for all practical purposes. 

That's a pretty broad definition, there.  If we're going to use that yardstick, then... Why has John McCain been 'palling around' with terrorists like Dick Cheney?

There's also anoter terrorist pal of Liar McCain's, and his name is G.Gordon Liddy.  Liddy once advocated for American domestic right wing racist white supremacist trerrorists and/or American domestic right wing religious terrorists to shoot federal agents in the head.

In my experience, Harwood (who I have frequently heard on MSNBC) is pretty much a straight arrow in terms of his political reporting and opinions.  The quote you provide is simply reporting on Palin's noxious assertion regarding Sen. Obama.  It's clear that the McCain campaign has decided to make her their attack dog since they have no thing going for them on the issues at stake in the presidential campaign.  MSNBC (via Keith Olbermann) immediately followed up upon its report of Palin's attack by reporting the facts if the O'Bamma-Ayers "relationship" and Obama's statement attacking Ayers' long-ago background.