News William Ayers: What's the Real Story?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LowlyPion
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Interview
AI Thread Summary
William Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground, is a controversial figure due to his past involvement in bombings aimed at protesting U.S. policies during the Vietnam War. Critics argue that his unrepentant stance on these actions raises serious ethical concerns, equating his tactics with terrorism. The discussion highlights the parallels drawn between Ayers and political figures like Barack Obama, suggesting that attempts to link them are politically motivated and reminiscent of McCarthyism. Supporters of Ayers contend that his actions were symbolic rather than intended to cause harm, framing them as expressions of dissent against a repressive government. Ultimately, the debate centers on the definitions of terrorism and dissent, and how they apply to historical and contemporary political contexts.
  • #51
CaptainQuasar said:
I think so. You said that two wrongs do not make a right and I was pointing out that falsifying intelligence and invading Iraq constitute two wrongs.
Ok, well that's a pretty bizarre non sequitur. I have no comment to make on it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
CaptainQuasar said:
Okay, this is just getting silly. First you say that he wasn't part of the Weathermen any more, now you say that he was part of the Weathermen and knew about plans for mass murder and just didn't stop them? You're simply demonstrating that you don't know anything salient about him and are defending him blindly.

Look, if you want to forgive him for it, go ahead and forgive him. Heck, Ronald Reagan went and laid a wreath on the graves of a bunch of Nazi S.S. soldiers in the eighties, forgiving them for way worse things. But there's no point in pretending he didn't participate in that stuff knowingly and willingly.



Go back and read what I've written in this thread.


i do forgive him, just as i forgive McCain. that is kind of the point of a lot that i wrote here. i don't see a big difference between the two, other than McCain actually killed a lot of innocent people and when confronted by his conscience didn't do anything about it because he was afraid of the consequences. Ayers actually had the courage of his convictions.
 
  • #53
LowlyPion said:
It's not at all irrelevant...

You can't effectively assess Ayers' acts out of the context of the times, as those acts were in response to what was happening at the time.
The law does not say that treason and murder are ok if you really believe in your cause. It is irrelevant.
And since you are so against throwing around in this forum unsupported characterizations, what violence did Ayers actually commit against other people? Are you relying on the deaths of the three people that killed themselves making a bomb?
Please read carefully what I say. I do not throw around unsupported characterizations. I was specific and I meant nothing more and nothing less than what I said: Ayers was a member of a terrorist organization who'se stated goal was to wage war against the US. Whether he actually planted any of the bombs himself affects only the particular type of crime. And again, if he had been more successful - as he wishes he would have been - he'd probably still be in jail today, if not executed for murder or treason.
 
Last edited:
  • #54
russ_watters said:
Allright, I'm out of the McCain thing. This isn't a McCain/Ayers thread. It's an Ayers thread. What you think of McCain isn't relevant to a discussion about Ayers - it's an intentional distraction.

Ayers was protesting the very thing McCain was doing. McCain is the one that brought the whole subject up. but if you'd rather, we can discuss what this Ayers thread is really about.

http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/wantedfortreason.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
russ_watters said:
Ok, well that's a pretty bizarre non sequitur. I have no comment to make on it.

Oh, okay. Well, in some other thread when you entertain two wrongs making a right, I'll be sure to refer you back to what you said here. :biggrin: (It definitely was a non-sequitur, I just thought it was a humorous observation.)
 
  • #56
Proton Soup, you shouldn't try to prove that black is white because of where your sympathies lie. No one is going to believe or respect anything you say about McCain now because you have demonstrated yourself so ready to move forward on incorrect or misleading facts related to Ayers.
 
  • #57
Proton Soup said:
Ayers was protesting the very thing McCain was doing. McCain is the one that brought the whole subject up. but if you'd rather, we can discuss what this Ayers thread is really about.
Actually, it was Hillary Clinton who first brought it to light - why aren't we talking about her? Oh, tha'ts right: It isn't relevant!
 
  • #58
LowlyPion said:
Being so eager to paint Obama with a guilt of acquaintance with William Ayers...
I shouldn't have to clarify again, but: I have never mentioned Obama in this thread! This isn't about Obama, it isn't about Clinton, and it isn't about McCain. It is about Ayers.
 
  • #59
Funny thing, Russ, you seemed to completely ignore Ayers comments that he didn't support hurting more innocent people. I thought that was the basis of your argument - that he would do it again.
 
  • #60
Proton Soup said:
edit: actually, i could care less. what's any of this got to do with Obama?
Nothing. But you are the one who brought up Obama. That right there was the first I used his name in this thread! You are the one bringing up all these irrelevancies to try to derail the thread.
 
  • #61
Proton Soup said:
Ayers was protesting the very thing McCain was doing. McCain is the one that brought the whole subject up. but if you'd rather, we can discuss what this Ayers thread is really about.

http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/wantedfortreason.jpg
Is[/URL] this flyer something Ayers made?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #62
Ivan Seeking said:
Funny thing, Russ, you seemed to completely ignore Ayers comments that he didn't support hurting more innocent people.
I must have - can you point me to the quote? The Wiki article you posted doesn't say that.
 
  • #63
CaptainQuasar said:
Proton Soup, you shouldn't try to prove that black is white because of where your sympathies lie. No one is going to believe or respect anything you say about McCain now because you have demonstrated yourself so ready to move forward on incorrect or misleading facts related to Ayers.


you mean the way you and others likewise want to mislead other wrt Obama? no one is going to believe you now.
 
  • #64
russ_watters said:
The law does not say that treason and murder are ok if you really believe in your cause. It is irrelevant.

What murder? What treason?

You vilify him for dissent?

He murdered a statue? And a steam pipe? Otherwise I don't see that you have connected him to anything else. Or is it more of this McCarthyesque acquaintance makes you guilty of something?

And btw the murder of students at Kent State was what? National Policy?
 
  • #65
I'm going to be bold and say that we've established that Ayers was a member of a terrorist organization and now are discussing whether or not he's a bad guy, it still seems to me it's possible he simply let his ideology overwhelm his sense of right and wrong. (But if anyone disagrees with the statement that he was a member of a terrorist organization, feel free to challenge that of course.)
 
  • #66
Evo said:
Is this flyer something Ayers made?

no, it was an intent to incite violence against the POTUS, just as people are now trying to do so with Ayers. it's to point out what this sort of misleading propaganda is designed to do.

http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/wantedfortreason.htm

...A comparable incident was the appearance of the "Wanted for Treason" handbill on the streets of Dallas 1 to 2 days before President Kennedy's arrival. These handbills bore a reproduction of a front and profile photograph of the President and set forth a series of inflammatory charges against him.490 Efforts to locate the author and the lithography printer of the handbill at first met with evasive responses 491 and refusals to furnish information.492 Robert A. Surrey was eventually identified as the author of the handbill.493 Surrey, a 38-year- old printing salesman employed by Johnson Printing Co. of Dallas, Tex., has been closely associated with General Walker for several years in his political and business activities.494 He is president of American Eagle Publishing Co. of Dallas, in which he is a partner with General Walker.495 Its office and address is the post office box of Johnson Printing Co. Its assets consist of cash and various printed materials composed chiefly of General Walker's political and promotional literature, 496 all of which is storm at General Walker's headquarters.497

Surrey prepared the text for the handbill and apparently used Johnson Printing Co. facilities to set the type and print a proof.498 Surrey induced Klause, a salesman employed by Lettercraft Printing Co. of Dallas,499 whom Surrey had met when both were employed at Johnson Printing Co.,500 to print the handbill "on the side." 501 According to Klause, Surrey contacted him initially approximately 2 or 2 1/2 weeks prior to November 22.502 About a week prior to November 22, Surrey delivered to Klause two slick paper magazine prints of photographs of a front view and profile of President Kennedy,503 together with the textual page proof.504 Klause was unable to make the photographic negative of the prints needed to prepare the photographic printing plate,505 so that he had this feature of the job done at a local shop.506 Klause then arranged the halftone front and profile representations of President Kennedy at the top of the textual material he had received from Surrey so as to simulate a "man wanted" police placard. He then made a photographic printing plate of the picture.507 During the night, he and his wife surreptitiously printed approximately 5,000 copies on Lettercraft Printing Co. offset printing equipment without the knowledge of his employers.508 The next day he arranged with Surrey a meeting place, and delivered the handbills.509 Klause's charge for the printing of the handbills was, including expenses, $60.510

At the outset of the investigation Klause stated to Federal agents that he did not know the name of his customer, whom he incorrectly described; 511 he did say, however, that the customer did not resemble either Oswald or Ruby.512 Shortly before he appeared before the Commission, Klause disclosed Surrey's identity.513 He explained that no record of the transaction had been made because "he saw a chance to make a few dollars on the side." 514

Klause's testimony receives some corroboration from Bernard Weissman's testimony that he saw a copy of one of the "Wanted for Treason" handbills on the floor of General Walker's station wagon shortly after November 22.515 Other details of the manner in which the handbills were printed have also been verified.516 Moreover, Weissman testified that neither he nor any of his associates had anything to do with the handbill or were ,acquainted with Surrey, Klause, Lettercraft Printing Co., or Johnson Printing Co. 517 Klause and Surrey, as well as General Walker, testified that they were unacquainted with Lee Harvey Oswald and had not heard of him prior to the afternoon of November 22.518 The Commission has found no evidence of any connection between those responsible for the handbill and Lee Harvey Oswald or the assassination.

Source: http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wcr/page298.php
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #67
russ_watters said:
Actually, it was Hillary Clinton who first brought it to light - why aren't we talking about her? Oh, tha'ts right: It isn't relevant!

See we agree about some things anyway.
 
  • #68
Proton Soup said:
you mean the way you and others likewise want to mislead other wrt Obama? no one is going to believe you now.

Okay, man, you're in total conspiracy theory mode here. If I'm on some secret mission to smear Obama's name, by my statements in this thread and the other things I've said about Obama on PF it's looking like I've probably failed my mission. Not to mention, y'know, I voted for him and he got elected.
 
  • #69
CaptainQuasar said:
Okay, man, you're in total conspiracy theory mode here. If I'm on some secret mission to smear Obama's name, by my statements in this thread and the other things I've said about Obama on PF it's looking like I've probably failed my mission. Not to mention, y'know, I voted for him and he got elected.


good for you, so did i.
 
  • #70
CaptainQuasar said:
I'm going to be bold and say that we've established that Ayers was a member of a terrorist organization ...

You're speaking for yourself and certainly not me as I don't see that within the context of the time that this ad hoc radical dissent rose to the status of "terrorist organization". This is the way that the Government of course would be happy to portray them to justify their own unlawful acts targeted at eliminating dissent.

These were not terrorists. No Timothy McVeighs and no al Queada folks these. They were disaffected youth that had been alienated by a government that was out of control and playing fast and loose with the lives of its citizens in pursuing ill considered foreign policy agendas.
 
  • #71
russ_watters said:
I must have - can you point me to the quote? The Wiki article you posted doesn't say that.

It sure does.
 
  • #72
The last part of the quote.

In the ensuing years, Ayers has repeatedly avowed that when he said he had "no regrets" and that "we didn't do enough" he was speaking only in reference to his efforts to stop the United States from waging the Vietnam War, efforts which he has described as ". . . inadequate [as] the war dragged on for a decade."[28] Ayers has maintained that the two statements were not intended to imply a wish they had set more bombs.[28][29]...
 
  • #73
CaptainQuasar said:
I'm going to be bold and say that we've established that Ayers was a member of a terrorist organization and now are discussing whether or not he's a bad guy, it still seems to me it's possible he simply let his ideology overwhelm his sense of right and wrong. (But if anyone disagrees with the statement that he was a member of a terrorist organization, feel free to challenge that of course.)
I have a problem with giving people a pass for allowing their ideology to get the better of them, but in any case, he's had 40 years to think it over and he hasn't changed his mind.

I would say that he is still a bad guy because he is unrepentant.
 
  • #74
Proton Soup said:
no, it was an intent to incite violence against the POTUS, just as people are now trying to do so with Ayers.

I don't see any call to violence.

What I see are the vestigial rationalizations of a failed political campaign that was designed to be divisive, by asserting that Ayers past would be callous and criminal. But I think as an issue that it never had any legitimacy in public discourse as it regards Obama, unless there would be some contagion in a handshake which would make him guilty of simply being acquainted with him.
 
  • #75
I don't defend the actions of the weathermen, but this is why people like Ayers were so upset.

trial08.jpg


http://www.aolcdn.com/aolportal/phan-thi-kim-phuc-vietnam-war-1972-550-020607.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #76
LowlyPion said:
These were not terrorists. No Timothy McVeighs and no al Queada folks these. They were disaffected youth that had been alienated by a government that was out of control and playing fast and loose with the lives of its citizens in pursuing ill considered foreign policy agendas.

Okay, they made half a dozen nail bombs and the only reason they didn't kill tons of people with those bombs, probably quite easily as many as Timothy McVeigh killed (168 people), is that they blew themselves up first. It blows my mind that you can pretend that isn't terrorism.
 
  • #77
Thanks Ivan, but we've already discussed in great detail how horrible the Vietnam war was. Notice how no one has been posting gruesome pictures of the injuries inflicted by a nail bomb, which would be just as appropriate to the discussion as photos of wounded children in Vietnam.
 
  • #78
My Lai Massacre: On March 16, 1968 the angry and frustrated men of Charlie Company, 11th Brigade, Americal Division entered the village of My Lai. "This is what you've been waiting for -- search and destroy -- and you've got it," said their superior officers. A short time later the killing began.
Online Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/trenches/mylai.html

The weathermen were people reacting horribly to other atrocities.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #79
CaptainQuasar said:
Thanks Ivan, but we've already discussed in great detail how horrible the Vietnam war was. Notice how no one has been posting gruesome pictures of the injuries inflicted by a nail bomb, which would be just as appropriate to the discussion as photos of wounded children in Vietnam.


Well, since no one seemed to see part where Ayers denies that he would do it again, I assumed that no one saw the relevant information about VN.
 
  • #80
russ_watters said:
I have a problem with giving people a pass for allowing their ideology to get the better of them, but in any case, he's had 40 years to think it over and he hasn't changed his mind.

I would say that he is still a bad guy because he is unrepentant.

What do you think about Reagan forgiving the SS agents, then?

And also, George Bush is unrepentant for having chosen a path that killed 5k Americans, various Coalition troops, and tens or hundred of thousands of Iraqis with foreknowledge that there would be the level of death and suffering that comes with any invasion of a large country. Remember the press conference where he was asked if he'd handled anything badly and, y'know, he just couldn't think of anything?

These are relevant because how you would answer those two cases speaks to the consistency of who you call the bad guys.
 
  • #81
Ivan Seeking said:
Well, since no one seemed to see part where Ayers denies that he would do it again, I assumed that no one saw the relevant information about VN.

I did see you quote that, and I've seen footage of Ayers saying it himself, and I believe him. It seems obvious to me also that the deaths of his friends in Greenwich also resulted in a change of heart about the degree of violence he was willing to use, even back at the time in the heat of it all.
 
  • #82
Also, those photos are exactly what we saw here in the US. That is how the war looked to us. We didn't read about it. We watched it.

Of course, we also saw the dead boys coming home.
 
  • #83
Perhaps my first essay in school was about the photo of the children running in terror.
 
  • #84
Ivan Seeking said:
The last part of the quote.
Sorry, I did miss that. Interesting that it isn't a direct quote from Ayers - in fact, if you read the sourced links, he doesn't say that he wouldn't have killed anyone if he had the chance. He dances around the issue very skillfully, saying things like 'I never killed anyone' without saying he never tried to or wanted to. And he never addresses the bombing his organization was planning when the accident happened that killed his girlfriend.

So I stand by my position, absent an actual quote from Ayers where he says he rejects violence.
 
  • #85
CaptainQuasar said:
Notice how no one has been posting gruesome pictures of the injuries inflicted by a nail bomb, which would be just as appropriate to the discussion as photos of wounded children in Vietnam.

Why would they?

When were nail bombs used again?
 
  • #86
Ivan Seeking said:
I don't defend the actions of the weathermen, but this is why people like Ayers were so upset.[/PLAIN]
That's a self-contradictory statement, Ivan.
 
  • #88
LowlyPion said:
Why would they?

When were nail bombs used again?

See [post=1958484]this earlier post[/post], I did a fair amount of research to confirm what Russ was saying, which I'd already heard elsewhere as well. (But go ahead and look at those links yourself, don't just take my word.)
 
  • #89
russ_watters said:
That's a self-contradictory statement, Ivan.

Clearly you don't understand the difference between defending, and understanding, hence your position on most subjects.

You are too young to remember any of this, so why are you passing judgement? Yes, these guys were corrupted by what they saw. Yes, what they did was wrong. Does that make them terrorists? Fine, if that makes you feel good, call them terrorists, but that doesn't take away from the complexities of the time. Emotions were out of control and some people did terrible things, both for and against the war.

Your position is no different than those who threw rocks at the returning soldiers. You are trying to simply something that was very complicated.
 
  • #90
I would wager that Ayers has contributed far more to society than most people here.
 
  • #91
russ_watters said:

I see. So you are basing your unsupported allegations on a Conservative Blogger citing other Conservative Bloggers, the Conservative National Review and the GOP?

You really shouldn't be tossing around these allegations like they are facts.

The Grand Jury investigated and couldn't determine who did it?
 
  • #92
CaptainQuasar said:
But you have specifically chosen people reknowned for their non-violent protest there to compare him to.
I was not comparing them to Ayers; they still meet all the requirements of Russ' statement which I responded to. He said nothing about violence.
 
  • #93
Gokul43201 said:
I was not comparing them to Ayers; they still meet all the requirements of Russ' statement which I responded to. He said nothing about violence.

Oh, I see. So it was purely coincidental you didn't mention non-violent crime-committers like Kenneth Lay or Fred Phelps, or their equivalents from the 60's, eh? You weren't making a comparison, you just happened to pick a group of civil rights notables completely at random in an unbiased fashion that matched up to Russ's statement about Ayers? :wink:
 
  • #94
Ivan Seeking said:
You are too young to remember any of this, so why are you passing judgement? Yes, these guys were corrupted by what they saw. Yes, what they did was wrong. Does that make them terrorists? Fine, if that makes you feel good, call them terrorists, but that doesn't take away from the complexities of the time. Emotions were out of control and some people did terrible things, both for and against the war.
I lived through those times. Emotions were only out of control for a group that couldn't control their emotions. They were pariahs. They were not accepted by anyone. The "hippies" were appaled by them. Mainstream America was against them. They were a lunatic fringe. Even worse, they were a violent lunatic fringe that even the lunatic fringe distanced themselves from.

Ivan, wasn't the Vietnam war over by the time you were old enough to be drafted? I do believe that I am older than you.
 
Last edited:
  • #95
* Arches eyebrow, stares gravely off into the distance *

You have not... seen what I have seen. You have not wept the tears that I have wept. You have not worn the bell bottoms and roach clips and macramé that I wore because I saw the cool older kids wearing them.
 
  • #96
CaptainQuasar said:
Oh, I see. So it was purely coincidental you didn't mention non-violent crime-committers like Kenneth Lay or Fred Phelps, or their equivalents from the 60's, eh? You weren't making a comparison, you just happened to pick a group of civil rights notables completely at random in an unbiased fashion that matched up to Russ's statement about Ayers? :wink:
The point of my response was to examine the adequacy of the criteria Russ used to determine what makes a person "bad". Nothing more or less.
 
  • #97
Ah, well there you go. That's certainly valid, I shouldn't have assumed.
 
  • #98
Also, Mandela was not entirely peaceful. I think Mandela even led a bombing campaign. I don't think it's easy to judge people as "good" or "bad" based on specific actions, without understanding the environment the actions were performed in. I definitely do not condone what Ayers did, but he seems more misguided than "bad".

I think that calling him a terrorist and associating him with Obama was a pathetic ploy by the Republicans to try to exploit the public's fear about mass terrorism.
 
Last edited:
  • #99
siddharth said:
Also, Mandela was not entirely peaceful. I think Mandela even led a bombing campaign.

Mandela was the commander of the armed wing of the ANC (although he wasn't very good at it). So, yes, at that point in his life he did believe that an armed struggle was the only way forward (although initially they did try to minimize the risk of civilian casualites).
 
Back
Top