Bill Ayers
polaris
Posts: 3,527
ok - i think this deserves it's own thread ...
the GOP have basically banked their campaign on linking Ayers to Obama - obviously that works for their base, not sure how that's working with the swing voters in swing states ...
in any case - from what i can gather from the guy ... he is what defines true patriotism to me ... believing that the bomb that killed members of the group he was in was a mistake - i don't believe any other bombs killed anyone ... and can anyone disregard his level of community service over the past 20 years!?? ...
so - beyond the knee jerk reaction of the word "terrorist" - is Bill Ayers a bad man? ... i don't think so ...
the GOP have basically banked their campaign on linking Ayers to Obama - obviously that works for their base, not sure how that's working with the swing voters in swing states ...
in any case - from what i can gather from the guy ... he is what defines true patriotism to me ... believing that the bomb that killed members of the group he was in was a mistake - i don't believe any other bombs killed anyone ... and can anyone disregard his level of community service over the past 20 years!?? ...
so - beyond the knee jerk reaction of the word "terrorist" - is Bill Ayers a bad man? ... i don't think so ...
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
my understanding is that the only deaths (3) associated with the group happened to their own members ...
and what part of his last 20 years would you say made him a douchebag?
Regardless of what good the man did in the past 20 years he is still responsible for the bombings he orchestrated and that is what makes him a douche bag.
well ... i disagree ... it is widely known now that the war in vietnam (much like most of the wars america wages) had no moral backing whatsoever ... and it can also be argued that apathy and complaceny by the american public by who's name these wars are engaged upon that resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent people are to blame ...
if it wasn't for "activists" - what kind of world would we be living in now? ...
Sweep the Leg Johnny.
I'm basing on the fact that he never seems to have shown remorse for what he did. Considering I work with people who were formerly incarcerated in my job everyday, I believe strongly in the power of redemption, but I think part of that has to do with acknowledging the problems with what you have done. The guy hasn't done so. Again, we're all speculating about his reformation, his guilt or innocence, etc. None of us know this guy, but based on the fact that the bombings he helped orchestrate led to death and he's never expressed any remorse, it's hard to hold a high opinion of him. It's not that I despise the ground he walks upon; I just don't really give a shit about him.
Well, let's take this to it's natural conclusion.
Since Israel's policies and treatment of Palestinians living in Gaza, etc. is abhorrent, then a suicide bomber is justified when he steps on a bus in Jerusalem and kills Jewish men, women and children? We can't just decry the terrorism we disagree with and disregard the rest. Just cause we agree with the criticisms Ayers had of this nation does not mean that his actions are automatically justifiable.
I will not say that violence is never necessary; it was necessary in the American Revolution, it was necessary for the overthrow of the apartheid government in South Africa, etc. However, I don't like at Bill Ayers' situation and see necessity; I see some yuppie college student who was part of a "movement" that killed innocent people. A line has to be drawn somewhere.
yeah...oops, sorry! I thought that bomb was safe. In the future we'll make every effort to ensure that our terrorism is conducted in the safest manner possible.
the man hates his country, his ideas are so polluted, and he's molding future generations to destroy this country. Patriot my ass. His ideology is our worst enemy.
never trust a fuckin' hippie - Fatty
For the same reasons more and more wars don't make the world a better place, dropping bombs on everyone that pisses you off makes it more dangerous. I assume some of you must think, even if you are pro-choice, that bombing clinics is patriotic? I did not think so.
The real validity to this thread is the discussion of how the GOP hopes to make him Willie Horton Ayres. I think the link is comical. And I don't even think they'd try it if their opponent's name was James Steven Johnson. But to defend Ayres' actions? Wow.
I have nothing against activism, but Ayers crossed the line into terrorism by carrying out acts of violence. At that point he became no better than the people he was rallying against. I'm assuming then, by your logic, that Tim McVeigh and Osama Bin Laden are just activists.
None of us here can undertand what that time period was like.. so I really feel it is totally inappropriate to judge the actions of a man 40 years later when NO ONE knows how they would deal with what happened during that war and that time in history.
As individual fingers we can easily be broken, but together we make a mighty fist ~ Sitting Bull
Even more, one must understand how political protest plays into it. The war had escalated by 1969 when the weatherman formed. Nixon wasnt scaling down the war, he was escalating it. And this was a time of intense protest. Everyone and their mother were protesting the war. Hundreds of thousands of people protested. And the war raged on...
I applaud ayers for thinking outside the box.
Ultimately he came to the conclusion that the u.s. have to experience great upheavel unless the troops were pulled out. that the u.s. was going to be going crazy until that happened.
digster: he has shown remorse for that aspect of his campaign ... and i've never advocated the deaths of innocent people (nor from what i can gather Ayers - again, on the assumption that he didn't advocate casualties from anyone) ... again - NO innocent people were killed as the result of Ayers actions ...
uncle leo: so, people should sit idly by while you're country invades foreign lands all in the name of imperialism? ... what solution do you have to hold your gov't responsible for what they've done and are continuing to do?
mammasan: i don't advocate the killing of innocent people nor war for that matter - but when you look at what was going on in vietnam - how can you justify it? what do you do when your worst enemy is your gov't?
One thing is for sure, I like the weatherman idea of protest more than the "antiwar movement" currently going on. Quotes intended.
Walking around with signs and chanting, while I wish it were enough to stop the war, isnt going to stop the war in iraq or bring troops home. it just isnt.
times have changed. At one time, maybe that way was the best way or the most intelligent way to protest. Times have changed and protest tactics need to change as well.
Bill ayers recognized the ineffectual chanting and signs protest method and sought to break out of it.
So the appropriate solution is to plant bombs in office buildings? I'm not condemning the man's ideology; I'm as liberal as anyone you'll find on this board. I'm condemning the man's actions. Is there nothing to be said for personal, moral responsibility? Is it really a fault of "the times" that Ayers committed those actions, and then refused to condemn them later in life?
I think your comparison is faulty because many people are experiencing that every single day (the loss of friends and family). As widespread as the Vietnam conflict? Nowhere close, but a loss is a loss. Two good friends of mine went to Iraq, and one of them is never coming home. I'm enraged, but I'm not going to respond with bombings. Why? Because I understand that personal responsibility is involved, and that by taking an innocent life what moral righteousness do I have? How am I more "moral" than Dick Cheney if I take that life?
It's not all personal responsibility or all social problems. In truth, life is determined by a combination of the two, but Ayers chose to endanger innocent lives; no one forced his hand.
I don't justify what our government did in Vietnam but engaging in acts of violence is no better. By taking the course of action that Ayers did he became what he professed to be fighting against.
Also to comment to what a few others stated. I didn't have to livc through that period of time in order to understand what was going on. I know how f'ed up our government was. I know of the atrocities carried out by our military but that still does not make Ayer's actions acceptable. What he did back them was wrong no matter which way you look at it.
It is true that no "innocent" people died as a result of the Weathermen underground activities. The loss of life occurred in the Greenwich village, as the bombmakers were working on the bomb. According to co-conspirators, the plan was to use the bomb at a dance for non-commissioned officers in Jersey. I'm pretty uncomfortable with the idea of Bill Ayers, or anyone for that matter, deciding who and who is not 'innocent.' Are those non-commissioned officers 'innocent?' My grandfather worked for the military during the Vietnam era; I wonder if, according to Ayers, he was 'expendable.' See what I mean? Who the hell gives Ayers, or any terrorist, the right to decide who is innocent and who is an accomplice? I mean, they were making a nail bomb in the basement of their townhouse; you don't regularly use those to inflict property damage.
I am a sociologist or a sociology major. So my understanding of the world is that things occur because of politics. Ayers and others have said why they did what they did. It was because they felt the only way the country would listen was if they started to bring the war home, and that if the country was in so much upheavel, that the u.s. would have to pull out of vietnam. They felt like their entire generation was getting sent to vietnam and never coming back. I have felt this way in the past about iraq. Its a scary feeling. A feeling like you have no control. that in spite of the most intense and massive protests in human history the war in iraq still rages on. what can you do? Do you continue to hold signs and chant even though that has proven ineffective?
They thought about bombing soldiers in fort dix, but their bomb ended up killing their OWN members. They never wounded or killed anyone save those members.
When they set bombs off they would let it be known to the occupants of the buildings that a bomb was going to go off and let them know they should leave.
Bill ayers isnt a killer. he didnt kill anyone. To link him with al qaeda is insane. alqeada kills and beheads. Ayers set bombs off 40 years ago, none of his bombs killed anyone. None wounded anyone.
As I said in a post above, they were planning to bomb soldiers at a non-comissioned officer dance in Jersey. They were going to use a nail bomb; what do you think nail bombs are used for, besides killing and maiming? I can think of many other ways to inflict significant property damage than nails. And I don't think the fact that they were inadequate bombmakers excuses the intentions behind their actions.
The problem with your argument (and in my opinion, many sociological departments in general) is that it deals entirely in abstraction. Of course everything in this world responds to politics, but I haven't yet heard an explanation of why, if the U.S. government is engaged in an unjust war, a citizen such as Ayers is justified in attempts to murder other U.S. citizens? How is it not comparable to Al Qaeda? Al Qaeda attacks U.S. citizens and interests in response to perceived American atrocities on their people. Bill Ayers attacked U.S. citizens and interests in response to American atrocities on the Vietnamese. How are those situations different? Because your argument is in an abstraction, the value of the human lives that would have been snuffed out by that faulty nail gun (and the human lives that WERE snuffed out) is irrelevant. I think that's not a great way at looking at the legitimacy of terrorism.
No you're not.
again - Ayers has expressed remorse for the way the group went particularly as it relates to that bomb in greenwich village ... i don't agree with any actions that could result in human casualties ... i am more than ok with property damage under various circumstances ...
but where does that leave us ... ffwd 40 years ... america continued to act in the name of greed sacrificing the lives of millions of innocent people ... you can condemm a man like Ayers all you want but at the end of the day - but no one seems to be doing anything about it ... how does a country allow something like iraq to happen!?? ... because the people that make these decisions understand that no one's really gonna do anything about it ...
so ... what is the solution? ... the sit ins and marches and viral campaigns aren't accomplishing a whole lot are they?
didn't we have a discussion last week where you said that because of the scale of nazi torture - it's not fair to compare US actions with nazis?? ... they bombed federal buildings when no one was around with ample warning for evacuation ... meanwhile kids are fucking burning alive with napalm in south east asia ...
Well alot of things piss me off. I better get into the basement and start making bombs.
The argument seems to have moved away from "is Ayers sorry for what he did" to the argument of "was Ayers justified in doing what he did?" I've never seen any expressions of remorse from Ayers regarding that bombing or any other; he seems to have viewed it as unfortunate, but necessary. And he is wrong. But I'll take you word that he has expressed guilt and remorse over those actions. We seem to be talking about now whether those actions were justified.
Just because there is an apathy in the American public does not excuse terrorism. There's no connection between the two. You seem to be sympathetic towards Ayers' plight because "at least he did something about the problem." Well, if I was severely depressed and shot myself, I'd be doing something about the problem too. That doesn't make it a wise or necessary course of action. Just like between happiness and suicide there's a therapist, maybe there's a middle ground between apathy and bombmaking.
Like I said, I cannot say that violence is never necessary; what if you are persecuted without any other means of fighting back? Maybe I could take the argument that Ayers had "no other options" a little bit better if he was an African-American on the wrong side of a fire hose in the 60's, or if he was a Xhosa African in Soweto during the height of apartheid. But he's not. He's a kid of upper-middle-class upbringing how got caught up in liberal radicalism. I'm fine with civil disobedience and non-violent resistance, and I'm aware that such demonstrations often lead to violence due to the actions of police/military. But let's please try to separate that line of thinking from the line of thinking that leads someone to create a bomb for the sole purpose of maiming. It demeans the legitimate and widepsread protest movements of the 60s.
soooo ... you have no solution then? ... just sarcasm?
AGAIN - we need to settle this once and for all because you keep typing the same thing and i keep repeating myself ...
it is my understanding that Ayers regrets the actions that led to the making of that bomb in greenwich village ... we're talking about the general movement that saw them bomb federal buildings in the middle of the night with ample evacuation warnings ...
You're defending Ayers, as you made clear in earlier posts; I don't see how it's possible to separate the "good bombs" from the "bad bombs." But in that situation, I don't know. I'd sure hate to be the janitor that accidentally didn't get the warning and left a family behind. But that's just collateral damage, isn't it? You make it like it's easy to separate everything. I'm for civil disobedience; I'm for non-violent resistance. In limited circumstances, depending on the situation, maybe I could understand bombs.
As for your continued pressure to name an alternative to Ayers' methodology and mode of thinking I have one; Martin Luther King. Guy didn't do too badly for himself, inspired a generation, spearheaded a civil rights movement and radically preached civil disobedience and nonviolent resistance. And I can assure you he would have been one of the first to condemn Ayers' methods.