William Ayers: What's the Real Story?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter LowlyPion
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Interview
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the controversial figure of William Ayers, particularly in relation to his past as a member of the Weather Underground and the implications of his actions during the Vietnam War era. Participants explore themes of political demonization, the legacy of McCarthyism, and the nature of violence in political activism. The conversation touches on historical context, individual perspectives on morality, and the connections drawn between Ayers and contemporary political figures.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Historical
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the motivations behind the media's focus on Ayers, suggesting it serves to resurrect McCarthy-era tactics of demonization.
  • Others argue that Ayers' unrepentant stance regarding his past actions, including bombings, is deeply disturbing and merits scrutiny.
  • There are claims that Ayers' actions, while violent, were a response to a government that suppressed dissent, with some participants expressing sympathy for his context.
  • Some participants assert that the attempts to link Ayers to Obama are politically motivated and lack substantive evidence.
  • Discussions arise about the nature of terrorism, with differing views on whether Ayers' actions qualify as such, and the implications of labeling political violence.
  • The conversation also includes comparisons between Ayers and other political figures, such as John McCain, with debates over the moral implications of their actions during the Vietnam War.
  • Participants express differing views on the characterization of the Vietnam War, with some labeling it as genocide and others contesting that definition.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a range of competing views regarding Ayers' actions and their implications, as well as the broader political context. There is no consensus on whether Ayers' actions can be classified as terrorism, nor on the moral comparisons drawn with other political figures.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of defining terrorism and the historical context of the Vietnam War, indicating that perspectives may depend on individual interpretations of events and motivations. The discussion reflects a variety of assumptions about political morality and the consequences of activism.

  • #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:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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.