<p>Nobody forced Barack Hussein Obama to have a long close relationship with a terrorist bomber. </p>
<p>The associations a candidate choose to make are fair game for evaluating a Presidential candidate. It’s unfortunately that, with associates like William Ayers, Jeramiah Wright, and Tony Rezko, the presumptuous Democratic nominee comes up short. It is what it is.</p>
<p>Riddle making the rounds:</p>
<p>What do Barack Hussein Obama and Osama Bin Laden have in common?</p>
<p>They both have friends who tried to blow up the Pentagon.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you for real? How can you deny terror was not the aim of structured placement of significant quantities of high explosives? How can you even suggest rushing thousands of employees out of buildings in a panic is not terrorism? Dross, I think you are quite likely a foreign national who likes to challenge himself by debating Americans using American English as an exercise. Fine, but you are sounding far, far less than credible with nonsense like this. “Supple mind”, indeed! That’s just idiotic, and I’m really trying to help you grasp the way most Americans think. Of course, you Socialists like to think us Colonials primitive, but that’s a matter of perspective. Thanks again for not using British spellings when you post. Americans instantly recognize that idiosyncrasy of our common language as unusual. </p>
<p>We should explore your feelings about the right to firearms and socialized medicine sometime.</p>
<p>Yes, the Weather Underground did indeed place pounds of high explosives in some buildings. However, you neglected (intentionally??) to point out that they later started to add roofing nails to their explosive devices, which I’m sure at this point you will attribute to a hatred of clean American porcelain, rather than an effort to see what happens when red hot metal meets with large quantities of human flesh at supersonic speeds. Maybe this was a science experiment for them or was merely further expression of legal theories of political speech, but I say it was terrorism, pure and simple. Fortunately, the only flesh shredded and toasted by their devices was their own. (Here’s a link to a graphic of the explosion site: [Greenwich</a> Village townhouse explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwich_Village_townhouse_explosion]Greenwich”>Greenwich Village townhouse explosion - Wikipedia) ) Clearly the aim was to refine their techniques and explosive technology to get their message out.</p>
<p>Terrorists as well were the KKK members who bombed black churches in the 1960s. The purpose of the KKK was to terrorize black Americans and they too used explosives. US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice grew up in Birmingham, AL when some called it “Bombingham”. She had a friend killed in an attack.</p>
<p>Careful while handling those fear bombs, Idad. That puss is nasty stuff;)</p>
<p>Has Interesteddad ever admitted being part of Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” or did he just duck and run when his agenda was exposed after he pretended to be a Clinton supporter?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve wondered the same thing, Kluge.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because with the common idea of the term “terrorism” the threat of the loss of life is the actual tool used to create force. That threat, though it may have (or not) occurred incidentally with the WU, was not the intended tool. The WU in fact took great pains to make it not a tool.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and because of how most Americans think I am encouraging you to be honest with words. Otherwise, you will simply confuse most Americans. I have said it before, and I will say it again, the WU were by no means “terrorists” in the Al Qaeda and Tim McVeigh sense. They went out of their way to avoid threats to people, which obviously defeats the point of terrorism. If you insist on using the word, you must qualify it so that the vast difference between the WU and real terrorists is apparent. Otherwise, you simply employ sleight of hand tricks to define the WU for sordid political games. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What British spellings are you talking about? If I use them, it is because of some idiosyncratic error I have apparently picked up. But your jumping to the conclusion that I am a socialist and a foreigner merely because of a spelling issue is quite bizarre, about as bizarre as insisting that real hardened terrorists, “terrorists with a capital T”, as you put it, include radical kids who bomb bathrooms and such, and who also go out of their way to warn others about bombs so that no one might get hurt. You actually wish us to confuse such silly kids with Al Qaeda. Reason forbids this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You may harp on and on about “high explosives” until you drop dead. This still will not permit us by reason to confuse the WU with garden variety terrorists. They were different, operated differently. If we use the word “terrorist” regarding them, honor compels us to point out the difference because that difference makes all the difference in the world.</p>
<p>As for the WU’s ‘nail bomb’ I have neglected nothing. You apparently have failed to read what I have said. I dealt with this [url= <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060804085-post43.html]here[/url”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060804085-post43.html]here[/url</a>] and [url= <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060804484-post51.html]here.[/url”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060804484-post51.html]here.[/url</a>]. Ayers had had an intimate relationship with the bomb maker, Diana Oughton and had broken up with her when she made the nail bomb. Ayers was not present and he claims he did not know Oughton’s intent and why she built it as she did. There is speculation that she intended to kill herself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is far more complex than you are presenting here. Ayers and Oughton were not even working together at this time. They had broken up. So while Oughton may have aimed to kill others, perhaps including herself, it is not clear that Ayers aimed to do this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The use of explosives with the KKK and the WU is only a superficial similarity. The KKK set out of kill, maim, and terrorize. The WU just wanted to blow up government stuff to taunt the government. It had no desire to employ terror. That makes all the difference in the world in how we should define this group.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And this is completely irrelevant to this discussion.</p>
<p>Poet, do you mean “pus” as from an infection or “puss” as in a cat?</p>
<p>Dross, the only difference between the Weatherman Underground and people like Timothy McVeigh (et al) is that McVeigh knew how to competently use high explosives. McVeigh was able to assemble a large explosive device and not blow himself up. Both groups hated the United States…one from the right, one from the left.</p>
<p>Both were terrorist groups. The Weatherman Underground was moving toward attacking people and they were just lucky no one was killed in the other attacks they made.</p>
<p>They are “domestic” terrorists. Al-Qaeda is an international terrorist group.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No - it is a point of interest that our Secretary of State was the victim of racial terrorists.</p>
<p>By the way, Dross - the Jewish Anti-Defamation League also had some difficulty working through Reverend Wright’s statements:</p>
<p>*The leader of the Anti-Defamation League called presidential candidate Barack Obama’s spiritual mentor and pastor a “black racist” Tuesday and called upon the Illinois Democrat to “confront his minister” on his embrace of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.</p>
<p>ADL National Director Abraham Foxman issued his call after an ADL press release put out earlier the same day “welcomed” an Obama statement unambiguously condemning “anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan.” The Obama statement distanced the senator from a decision by his church’s magazine to honor Farrakhan with an award named for his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.</p>
<p>[On Wednesday morning, as The Jewish Week went to press, Foxman left a voice mail message amending his remarks, saying, Rev. Wright</p>
<p>“embraces, awards and celebrates a black racist. I think [calling him] racist is going a little bit too far.”]*</p>
<p>Source: [ADL</a> Chief To Obama: ‘Confront Your Pastor’ On Minister Farrakhan](<a href=“http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c37_a2220/News/National.html]ADL”>http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c37_a2220/News/National.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is not the only difference. McVeigh tried to and successfully murdered hundreds of innocent people. The WU pointedly avoided harming innocents, using bombs as a means, albeit twisted, of protest instead. It makes all the difference in the world.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps Oughton was moving toward attacking people, but we have no suitable evidence to claim Ayers was. Ayers actually claims he did not know why Oughton acted as she did. They had broken up a bi earlier, and it could be she intended to kill herself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well this is not news. I had the same difficulty, and apparently so did Obama, since he rejected Wright’s behavior regarding Farrakhan. And rejected Farrakhan himself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which is precisely what I have been saying here. Calling Wright a racist, as you have done, is going a little bit too far.</p>
<p>I have backed off that stance. I’ve been reading Wright’s and Cone’s statements and do not think that anymore.</p>
<p>^^^
please clarify… do not think what anymore?</p>
<p>I wrote that Wright was a racist earlier but do not hold nor recommend that position now after reading more of his and Reverend Cone’s statements.</p>
<p>At this point I think Wright should be viewed more like a Biblical prophet, who challenges those in authority to carefully avoid sin. If Wright perceives (corporate) sin, he excoriates and challenges the government. His positions are not too unlike those of the Catholic Church, for example, wherein it challenges governments to care for the weak and the sick.</p>
<p>Remember that he told Obama he was coming after him (to challenge government actions) should he be elected president, which would be consistent with Wright’s prior behavior.</p>
<p>While this preaching may be misinterpreted by many as racist, Wright does not care. He’s theologically oriented (duh, he’s a pastor ;)) and believes that upon review his words will clearly reveal what he means. </p>
<p>I have actually come to have substantial respect for the man. :)</p>
<p>Now, while Poet and Dross recover their senses…this does NOT mean I necessarily think Senator Obama is ready to be president when compared to McCain.</p>
<p>parent2noles, I’m recovering my senses too. 
I have a lot of respect for you. If only more people on both sides were less intent on demonizing the opposition instead of understanding them.</p>
<p>P2N, thank you, thank you, thank you for taking the time to do your own research and contemplation. Your willingness to tackle ideas by going to the source says a great deal about your character and integrity, and I, for one, am grateful for that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My senses are fine. My silence here was only due to a recent expedition to hell to watch the deep freeze there. I am back. As I said, I think there is enough virtue in Wright to easily justify Obamas love for him. But the Farrakhan thing leaves me cold. I understand it, have many friends who think likewise. But I just cant personally get around rubbing shoulders with the guy, let alone awarding him anything. I would never blame Obama for Wrights error. But I do blame Wright himself.</p>
<p>LOL—parent2noles. I did have to refresh my monitor a couple of times and reread your post slowly, word for word, to make sure I wasn’t merely experiencing a massive cognitive hiccup. But I did finally recover enough to pick my jaw up off the keyboard;). </p>
<p>I have to echo mathmom and mezzomom, here. My respect for your intellectual integrity has gone way up with this impressive demonstration of your ability for nuanced and careful thought. I also have to agree with Dross where Wright’s actions to embrace Farrakhan are concerned. I would never give him an award for anything, and I’m glad Obama vocally disagreed with Wright’s decision to do so.</p>
<p>parent2noles - thank you for your clarification. I thought that was what you were saying, but since I’ve yet to hear of someone who actually went to the source themselves (Cone, especially) and came away with a different interpretation, I wasn’t sure what I was understanding you to have posted was correct.</p>
<p>You are absolutely correct about Wright being a biblical scholar and his message being similar to that of the Catholic church; he just preaches it in a different way (btw… now you might understand why he and Pflegler tend to grab a lot of the religious PR here in the Chicago area… they both challenge us to understand what the social gospel is about). While I find lots of inspiration in black liberation theolgy (and other liberation theologies as well), I do think that Wright is of a different era than Obama or Moss (the current pastor at Trinity), or even Jesse Jackson, Jr. I think there is still a lot to hold our government accountable for, but his sermons sometimes seem to miss the message of hope, which is all some people have to hold onto these days. </p>
<p>I appreciate and respect that you are able to remain true to your support of McCain, yet explore and reflect on what is behind Wright’s theology.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I couldn’t agree more. I believe the mindset of the changing leadership within the African American community is reflected well within much of the speech Obama gave in Philadelphia immediately following the initial Wright explosion, when he said:
.</p>