William Ayers

[ddmoit]

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

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/s...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.

[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.

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 :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.

[ddmoit]

Originally Posted by Greg

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.

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

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=78130

http://www.policelink.com/news/artic...ps-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]

Originally Posted by Greg

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.

Originally Posted by Art

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.

[bbcamp]

Fairly civilized discussion so far...

Give it time, Dan. Give it time.

[John K]

He is a terrorist!!! There ya go..

[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?

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