William Ayers: What's the Real Story?

[Ivan Seeking]

I must have - can you point me to the quote? The Wiki article you posted doesn't say that.

It sure does.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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]...

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[LowlyPion]

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't defend the actions of the weathermen, but this is why people like Ayers were so upset.

http://www.aolcdn.com/aolportal/phan-thi-kim-phuc-vietnam-war-1972-550-020607.jpg

 

[CaptainQuasar]

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.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

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.

⚛​

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

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.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

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.

⚛​

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Perhaps my first essay in school was about the photo of the children running in terror.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[LowlyPion]

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?

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

Why would they?

When were nail bombs used again?

http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2008/10/who-killed-brian-v-mcdonnell.html

 

[CaptainQuasar]

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.)

⚛​

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I would wager that Ayers has contributed far more to society than most people here.

 

[LowlyPion]

http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2008/10/who-killed-brian-v-mcdonnell.html

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?

 

[Gokul43201]

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.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

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?

⚛​

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

* 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.

⚛​

 

[Gokul43201]

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?

⚛​

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.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Ah, well there you go. That's certainly valid, I shouldn't have assumed.

⚛​

 

[siddharth]

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.

 

[f95toli]

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).

 

[LowlyPion]

Another interview with William Ayers by Salon.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/11/17/ayers/

 

[CaptainQuasar]

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.

⚛​

 

[Proton Soup]

eh, terrorism is directed at civilians. if it's not directed at civilians, it's not terrorism.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

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.

⚛​

 

[Proton Soup]

so you think he qualifies as a pretty amorphous term? whatever.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

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.

⚛​