William Ayers

[ddmoit]

William Ayers made his first post-election media appearance today.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=6251086&page=1

Ayers, who still seems rather unapologetic, claims that what he did was not terrorism.

That term is just about meaningless today so I won't use it. I do think that what he did was wrong, and it bothers me that he remains unrepentant. Best I can tell, his reasoning in his defense is similar to Bush's "taking the fight to the enemy" reasoning, but I don't accept Ayers' definition of "enemy".

It may be too much to ask to have a discussion about this that doesn't degrade into name-calling and politics, but I am curious to to know: If you think Ayers' actions were wrong, tell me why. Labeling it as terrorism is not an explanation. Why is he wrong? Be precise. I would like to apply your reasoning to other actions to see how it holds up.

If you think his actions were justified, let's hear about that too.

[Sponsored Links]

[Dave Taylor]

I could look at it this way rather easily.

If Ayers had done more.... and that more had hastened the end of this country's involvement in Vietnam.....

my younger brother may be with me today doing the things he and I love so much..... together.

[ddmoit]

I realize that this is a touchy subject - especially for those that served there - but I think we had no business at all in Viet Nam.

While I might sympathize with Ayers' cause (opposition to the war - not his larger, communist cause), I cannot condone his actions. Further, I'm not sure that more of what he was doing would have made a difference.

I'm all for the use of force in defense of life and property, and would not hesitate to resort to violence in defense. I just can't characterize the actions of the Weathermen as defensive.

[HS345]

Dan,
I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that what Ayers did was wrong. Frankly, I will not fall into your little trap. Be precise. I would like to apply your reasoning to other actions to see how it holds up.
I think everyone that has spent some time in the Mud Box already knows how you feel about the Iraq war. So, by setting your little trap, I fail to see how you could even have a shred of hope for having a non confrontational discussion. :rolleyes: It may be too much to ask to have a discussion about this that doesn't degrade into name-calling and politics Clearly, it is too much to ask.

Any time you plan, and carry out attacks against innocent human beings, it is wrong. I do not care what your grievance is.

The goal of the weather underground organization was to put an end to the American way of life, capitalism, and freedom. In it's place, a totalitarian communist regime with them (the leaders of the weather underground) in control. They were willing to use any means to achieve their goals, including the murder of 25 million Americans. The fact that they were bumbling incompetent boobs doesn't make them in any way less culpable.

So, in the spirit of my opening remarks :D :No, in fact, in the twisted world of academe, the fact that you are an incompetent boob of an unrepentant domestic terrorist, actually qualifies you for a tenured professorship at a higher institute of indoc.......er.......learning.

In an interview on Good Morning America today Ayers stated, of Obama, "I wish I knew him better, we knew each other in a professional way on the same level as thousands of other people." However, in stark contradiction to that statement, Ayers called Obama a "family friend" in a new paperback release of his 2001 memoir, "Fugitive Days." But really, what would one expect from a psychopathic wannabe killer?

Here's a funny little picher for ya Beth.

[HS345]

Dave, I truly am sorry for the loss of your brother.

I was typing while you were responding, my comments are not a response to anything you said, I respect your opinions always. :bow:

[ddmoit]

Any time you plan, and carry out attacks against innocent human beings, it is wrong. I do not care what your grievance is.I couldn't agree more, Greg.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the bombings did not target or kill anyone. In fact, they issued warnings in advance to avoid casualties. They were reckless and constituted crimes against property, but they were not attacks against innocent humans. I won't bother to cite recent examples of violence where innocent humans could not be avoided as collateral damage.

[HS345]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the bombings did not target or kill anyone.
You are, and as you can imagine, I take great delight in pointing it out. :D

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0430jm.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78130

http://www.policelink.com/news/articles/63202-weather-underground-honoring-the-cops-they-killed

[John Bridge]

Well, we simply can't have people going around blowing up our public buildings, can we? :)

To me it doesn't matter what the thinking or the ideology of the Weathermen was. There were thousands of war protesters during that era, and they had a profound effect on the conduct and ultimate termination of the war. They did it peacefully, though. They did not try to coerce or threaten the majority of Americans into their way of thinking. There is no excuse for the destruction of public or private property as a means of having it your way.

[sandbagger]

I know what you are getting at Dan (I'm going to assume it's not a trap for an Iraq discussion), and it's an interesting philosophical question, I suppose. The answer all revolves around "context," and in that regard is not absolute.

For example, George Washington was a "terrorist" in the eyes of King George. If the Brits had won he would have led a long line of fellow "terrorists" to the gallows. But he won so he's a hero to the nation he helped found. This is a cycle that has repeated since man has started organizing tribes.

it's all about context. and btw, a lot of the colonists weren't so keen on this "revolution."

so having established my context, I think Ayers should be in jail at a minimum and possibly executed for treason. Even if I agreed with his motives (I do NOT) his methods were most certainly wrong.

[ddmoit]

I take great delight in pointing it out.Well, you have proved that my assertion is debatable, but I will not deny you the pleasure of having corrected me.:) Folks can read and decide for themselves.

JB, I can't disagree with anything in your post.

For example, George Washington was a "terrorist" in the eyes of King George. If the Brits had won he would have led a long line of fellow "terrorists" to the gallows.Agreed. Again, I think the label has lost any useful meaning.

Fairly civilized discussion so far - although I'm a little put off by Greg characterizing my "trap" as little.:D

[bbcamp]

Fairly civilized discussion so far...Give it time, Dan. Give it time. :D

[John K]

He is a terrorist!!! There ya go.. :stirpot: :D

[jvcstone]

Well, just to keep you honest Greg, the weather underground had been disbanded for years, and both Ayers and Dohrn had been adjudicated on all charges well before the Brinks robbery. They had no part in it, nor did the defunct weatherman organization other that those who pulled off the heist and subsequent murders were at one time members. So were a lot of other people who didn't have any association with that crime. The weather underground was not responsible for any activity after 73, and by the fall of Saigon in 75 it was a defunct organization. As for the San Francisco bombing in 69, no charges were ever brought against Ayers or Dohrn, neither ever claimed any responsibility except for the word of a government informant--know once in a while for making stuff up and lying through their teeth. I'll back Dan's claim that the "official" bombings of the weather underground were intended to make a statement, were announced before hand, and did not claim any lives or injuries. What some of the other members were responsible for later cannot be blamed on Ayers or his wife without a serious jump in logic.

JVC

[sandbagger]

Brinks robbery? Did I miss something? :scratch: What some of the other members were responsible for later cannot be blamed on Ayers or his wife without a serious jump in logic. Logic is not how you prove guilt, though it may help you find EVIDENCE to make the case. And that is what we appear to lack - hard evidence. Or maybe it's locked away somewhere because it can't be used in court. That requires no leap at all since we know it happened on other charges - that's why Ayers was never tried.

Fact is we may have been spared a more violent phase of the Weathermen by a combination of shear luck and carelessness. The bombs that accidentally exploded in the Greenwich village condo - killing 3 Weathermen - were laced with nails and shrapnel. They were not building "statement" bombs, but were believed to be headed to a Ft Dix dance attended by military officers. The Weathermen split into factions and basically disappeared. At that point Ayers probably lost control of much of the group.

[jvcstone]

Brinks robbery? Did I miss something?

I suppose that you did.

Go back and read your own link (the third one). The "bank" robbery was actually an armored car robbery--two brinks employees were killed during it. But, as I said, Ayers and Dohrn had nothing to do with it and the weather underground was long disbanded by then. The fire bombing of the judges house also did not fit the the weatherman modus operandi--most likely it was the black panthers (who were on trial) --another group known for it's anti-war position.

The bomb that killed the three members in Greenwich Village in 1970 was a pipe bomb, But I don't recall that it was "full of nails" Typical weather underground bombs were indeed pipe bombs- but no shrapnel. And I will say again, the weather underground always warned the blast was coming, and they never set out to harm anyone--just property.

Yes, the weather underground was a radical group actively protesting the war, as were a lot of groups including the VVAW. Some were more radical than others. But the fact is that the Ohio national guard killed more people at kent state than the weathermen ever thought of. Don't know your age group Greg, but I was an active participant in those wild times--both in and out of government service. That don't make me a terrorist these days either.

JVC

[HS345]

Go back and read your own link (the third one). The "bank" robbery was actually an armored car robbery--two brinks employees were killed during it. But, as I said, Ayers and Dohrn had nothing to do with it and the weather underground was long disbanded by then.
That was my link John, not Art's.

From Wikipedia:Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers turned themselves in on December 3, 1980, in New York, with substantial media coverage. Charges were dropped for Ayers. Dohrn received three years probation and a $15,000 fine.[6]

Certain members remained underground and joined other radical groups. Years after the dissolution of the WUO, former members Kathy Boudin, Judith Alice Clark, and David Gilbert formed the May 19 Communist Organization, which eventually joined with the Black Liberation Army. On October 20, 1981, in Nyack New York, the group robbed a Brinks armored truck containing $1.6 million. The robbery turned violent, resulting in the murders of two police officers and a security guard.[6] Boudin, Clark, and Gilbert were found guilty and sentenced to lengthy terms in prison, considered the “last gasps” of the Weather Underground.[45]
To say the Weather Underground had "long been disbanded by then", is either uninformed, or disingenuous. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume it's the former.
Pretty big coinkydink that former Weatherman joined up with the "Black Liberation Army". Now, where have I heard the term, Black Liberation before? Hmmmmm. Oh, that's it! :idea: Obama sat in the pews of a church for twenty years that preached, Black Liberation theology.


Typical weather underground bombs were indeed pipe bombs- but no shrapnel. And I will say again, the weather underground always warned the blast was coming, and they never set out to harm anyone--just property.
So, if that's true, I guess it's perfectly okie dokie then.:tup2:

But the fact is that the Ohio national guard killed more people at kent state than the weathermen ever thought of.
Having lived in NE Ohio for 20+ years, and listened to WNIR 100.1 FM "The Talk of Akron", a local talk station, I have listened to many, many, eye witness accounts of that event, and the preceding days leading up to it. I can tell you there are definitely two sides to that story.
Don't know your age group Greg, but I was an active participant in those wild times--both in and out of government service. That don't make me a terrorist these days either.


I was just shy of seven years old when the Kent State shootings occurred.

John, did you place bombs and kill anyone, regardless of if it was one of your own or not? Did you plan the reeducation, and or murder of up to 25 million people?

If you did, then yes, it does make you a terrorist these, or any other, days.

[jvcstone]

In 1973, the federal government requested the dismissal of the charges against the couple in the interest of national security following accusations of government misconduct,"[16] but state charges against Dohrn remained. Dohrn was still reluctant to turn herself in to authorities. "He was sweet and patient, as he always is, to let me come to my senses on my own", she later said of Ayers.[3] She turned herself in to authorities in 1980. She was fined $1,500 and given three years probation.[17]

From wikapedia also. Notice the 1973 date. I repeat that there were no "official" weather underground activities after the mid 70"s as the organization no longer existed. Various members went on to do a wide range of things with their lives , including some who pursued lives of crime. So to hold someone responsible for a crime just because someone he/she knew committed that crime is just ludicrous.

As for me, what I did or didn't do 35-40 years ago is my past and not who I am today. I will say that I agree with Ayers when he says he wished he had done more (he did not say he wished he had bombed more). I wish we all had done a lot more to end that war sooner, and I wish that so many of my generation had not become so complacent, and forgetful in allowing the current war to happen. A real "christian" nation would never act in the way we allow our government to act time and time again.

Yes, there are always two sides to every story. Best examine both sides closely if you want even a hint as to the truth.

JVC

[sandbagger]

I will be the first to say that one has to be careful about Wikipedia, but the articles I've seen on the Weathermen seem to be pretty well footnoted. Unfortunately many of those footnoted sources (ie, NY Times) require paid subs to get full articles.

That said, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwich_Village_townhouse_explosion#cite_note-NYT_1970-03-12-4) quotes the NY Times on the following regarding the bombs in the condo explosion "Police described the building as a "bomb factory", and said that at the time of the explosion dynamite was apparently being wrapped in tape with nails embedded to act as shrapnel."

And FBI informant Larry Gartwohl (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXDVLSDvL5w) confirms the radical turn the Weathermen were about to take at the time of the explosion.

[284]

Well, we simply can't have people going around blowing up our public buildings, can we?

Well, apparently it's "acceptable" for one ideology to do it, but no one else.

I do find it extremely interesting that these same liberal/progressives are the ones that are extremist, zero tolerance when it comes to Americans excercising their second ammendment right, the right to keep and bear arms.

I guess they just want everyone to be as safe as they are in the city of chicago.

[HS345]

As for me, what I did or didn't do 35-40 years ago is my past and not who I am today
That may or may not be true, but one is not absolved of their past deeds simply because of the passage of time.

So, because past members of the Weathermen weren't officially calling themselves "The Weathermen", that absolves Ayers of associating with, and being of like mind?

One's ideology is one's ideology, regardless of what you call yourself.

Gimme a break already.:shake:

Semantic arguments might work with liberals, but not with me.

[284]

If Ayers had done more.... and that more had hastened the end of this country's involvement in Vietnam.....

my younger brother may be with me today doing the things he and I love so much..... together.
Yeah, that's one way of looking at it.

But another way, the progressive people's government of north vietnam were going to give up their aims of conquering the south. In 68 tet, the progressive peoples terrorists in the south (VC) were pretty much annilated. But they decided to wait, watch TV, to see how their tet disaster played out "on the streets of america." (after the war ended and the progressive people's communist regiem took control of cambodia/laos/vietnam, giap even thanked the liberal/progressives in this country)

They were overjoyed when the liberal/progressives were rioting, making withdrawl demands, and the dolts/useful idiots in the media were potraying Tet as a defeat for the US Military.

So....the question really is, how many people were killed and murdered after 68tet?
Every one of those lives lost are directly attributable to the liberal/progressives like ayers, fonda, kerrie, etc.

And those numbers don't even count the genocide by the progressive communists when they took over laos and the mountainous regions and exterminated as many "indigenous people" as they could; the "re-education camps" where "learn or be exterminated" was done; or lon nol being toppled in cambodia, leading to the "killing fields".

The liberal/progressive "victory" over the US Military in vietnam, in effect, directly caused the deaths of I'd guess, 10,000,000 people.

There are a lot of brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters in that figure.

[284]

As for me, what I did or didn't do 35-40 years ago is my past and not who I am today

That may or may not be true, but one is not absolved of their past deeds simply because of the passage of time.

What did ayers say around the time our nation was attacked on 9-11? :D

"the chickens have come home to roost! God D**n America!"

Oops, that was just "another guy in the neighborhood", barry sotero obama's 20 year spiritual advisor. :D

Didn't ayers state he wished they did more? Me thinketh so...

[jvcstone]

But another way, the progressive people's government of north vietnam were going to give up their aims of conquering the south. In 68 tet, the progressive peoples terrorists in the south (VC) were pretty much annilated.

what fantasy comic does this bit of "history" come from.

To have "annihilated"the VC, we would have had to kill about 90% of the south's population. The VC were everywhere right up until the final evacuation in 75. Many VC worked for the US and Private contractors, where all over our installations, populated the ARVN ranks, and ruled the night even in areas around some of our major installations. But then, that's just my experience having spent most of a year on the ground there. The history of the Viet Nam war goes back to the end of WWII when Ho wanted sovereignty for his country but the western powers decided France should still be the exploitative colonial power it was prior to the Japanese running over most of SE Asia. The Vietnamese people always knew what they wanted--It's just that it ran counter to our interest (economic) in the region.

Much the same as the desires of the people in the mid east run counter to ours today.

JVC

[TileArt1]

John,
Don't pay any attention to Gary there. He dismisses anything at all that does not agree with his world view and tends to make facts fit his fiction. He'll tell you otherwise, but, like you said - fantasy comic. The above is a perfect example.

It still amuses me. :D

[sandbagger]

Tet was a major victory for the South, folks. :nod:

The North's plan was to create what appeared to be a lot of local "insurrections" so it would appear to be a civil war. The plan failed miserably. If there was any "annihilation" it was the Viet Cong who took it on the chin. In fact, it was almost 4 years before they could mount another offensive. The Vietnam war could have ended much differently had LBJ allowed the military to press the advantage and march to Saigon. It would not have been without a significant cost in lives, but far less costly than another 4+ years of stalemate and the ensuing slaughter of the eventual North takeover.

You can google a number of sources that tell the story, but I have found the account in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tet_Offensive) to be surprisingly complete and cross-referenced in detail.

[284]

John,
Thanks for the reply. I do like a good discussion. In times of slogans and agendas/vendettas and "guilty by accusation", it's such a rare thing these days.

To have "annihilated"the VC, we would have had to kill about 90% of the south's population.
How do you figure 90% of the south vietnamese were vc? That number seem sort, well, strange.

100% = Total population of south vietnam
40% of military "age" (third worlders have a very high % young)
----------------------------
= 60% total pop.

60% total pop "fighting material"
90% are vc
----------------------
= what, 10% of the population left for its military?
And of those, 50% male/female breakdown?

so, 5% of a nation available for service?
and of that, let's be nice and say that only 2% will be unsat/washouts?

So, in vietnam, 3% of the population fought a war?
A war where the progressive people's military dictatorial regime was invading them?

A war where the progressive people's military dictatorial regime had a history of slaughter, like so many other "people's this and that"?

Know why Hue was catholic?
Same reason the liberal/progressive people's "army" murdered about 35K before they withdrew from it. Quoting barry sotero obama, the fine folks at Hue were just "fearful people clinging to their religion". When the communists took over the north, the fled south.

If 90% of south vietnam were vc, why all the fleeing?
If 90% of south vietnam were vc, then why didn't they take over, as was fantasized about, after 68tet?
If 90% of south vietnam were vc, why, when siagon fell, was it nva mech and nva regulars?
=======================================================

Sorry, but there was about a 1/2 hour delay in this as I had to take a call.
Gotta go, but will yak more later.

BTW, if you think about it, "spies" integrated w/in institutions aren't the ones out chucking and shucking. They're intel and they don't fight. They get info and pass it down. And structurally, they're a very very small minority of any "force". They'd be there until the end because that's their job, intel. Others are to fight. Thus, like I said, they're a very very small minority of any force.

Gotta go.

The Vietnamese people always knew what they wanted--It's just that it ran counter to our interest (economic) in the region.

"our" interest there was far more than "economic". One thing a lot of people somehow forget is there was an "evil empire", the ussr out there dead set on dominating the world, putting it under their corrupt world socialism farce.
Know the only entity that could stop them? Yup, the mean ol United States.

This is where the phrase came from, "He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard." They have murdered far more, I'd say a few hundred million more people than "our bastards" ever did. And ya know what? We won.
In spite of liberal/progressives, the United States won.
Thus, the world won.

ask someone in iraq now if they liked it better under saddam.

We won. ...and so did they.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/01/31/iraqink_wideweb__430x343.jpg

In the end, freedom did indeed ring. Just like it is in iraq. Just like it did in afghanland.

Now, once the liberal/progressive dicatator castro kicks the bucket, that country too can be free. Heck, I even hear that some people can be allowed to have cell phones now. Some.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/10/21/castrotrips_wideweb__430x344.jpg

Too bad there wasn't a sword there for him to fall on. If he died, people could actually be free to flee his "workers paradise" and doctors could charge market rate and not be street hookers to make money.

But then what the hay, just like in vietnam, no elections, no freedoms, but state sponsored "education" and "free health care"....

Gotta go.

[TileArt1]

:lol1: :lol1:
nice pitcher! :jack:

[284]

which one?
I had to kill a black widow, then take pix of it for later use.

Castro's "I'll tumble for ya"? I do think that's great.

The person that could have made history? Was the person that pushed him.
Standing there, smiling...

http://www.dccomics.com/media/product/1/1/11036_180x240.jpg