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.

  • #91
russ_watters said:
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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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).
 
  • #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.
⚛​
 
  • #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?