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.
  • #101
Thanks for the link, LowlyPion.

One of the notable things, I think, is that the first time Ayers was arrested it was for a completely non-violent protest, a sit-in at a draft board in Ann Arbor MI in 1965. I'm sure it was a gradual progression of more desperate tactics as the Vietnam war got worse, until it culminated in the nail bombs and deaths of his friends in NYC in 1970.

As I've said I think that he qualifies as a terrorist and I think that this is exactly how most terrorists get made. Sure, there are some few wackos who simply seethe with hatred and thirst for blood. But I would expect that the vast majority of them, like Ayers, are people who start off opposing injustice by whatever peaceful means they can and are convinced by the violence of others. For the U.S. as a nation, when we push smaller countries around and do things like invade Iraq - things certainly as unjustifiable, if not more so, than Ayers' actions - that's exactly how we create terrorists all over the world.

The way Ayer's life has turned out since his terrorist days says it all. He's not a bloodthirsty wacko. He was a normal hotheaded young guy who ended up as a terrorist because his blood boiled at the sight of injustice, just like all the hotheaded young guys who rushed into Iraq to oppose the U.S. invasion.

And a fair number of those hotheaded young guys who went to Iraq already have or will in the future make it back home, except now they're trained in insurgent tactics and making car bombs, et cetera, and have an international network of contacts across the entire Muslim world. Nice one, Bush Administration. Now we have to try to figure out how to get cushy professor jobs to a hundred thousand people spread across half the world mostly in the poorest countries. And guess whose help we need to do that? Places like Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran.

Whose populations all loved us after Afghanistan! But now they're ▒▒▒▒▒ full of trained ▒▒▒▒▒ terrorists! I just cannot believe how ▒▒▒▒▒ stupid the Iraq War was! Excuse me, I have to go take some blood pressure medication.
⚛​
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #102
eh, terrorism is directed at civilians. if it's not directed at civilians, it's not terrorism.
 
  • #103
I don't get the comment man, it needs a little more context. Terrorism is a pretty amorphous term that isn't usually applied precisely anyways, so semantic arguments are a fast train to nowhere.

And if this is about Ayers, tell me whether you're basing this on his participation in a plan to construct nail bombs, or if we're still in the part of the discussion where people are trying to deny there were nail bombs.

If all you're doing is quibbling about how to define "terrorist" read the rest of my comment above, would ya? Just replace it with "enthusiastic activist" but read it.
⚛​
 
  • #104
so you think he qualifies as a pretty amorphous term? whatever.
 
  • #105
So you want to declare that half the stuff happening in Iraq isn't terrorism and let the Bush administration off the hook for an immense fumble in the War on Terror, just so that you can get points in some internet argument about William Ayers? Whatever.
⚛​
 
  • #106
sure, go after bush on iraq if you want, i don't care. is that why you want a very broad definition for terrorism, to go after bush? because you seemed to want a very tight definition on genocide. wouldn't it be easier to prosecute war crimes if the definition of genocide were not as tight as you like it to be?
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top