Bill Ayers

_

polaris wrote:

well ... i guess i'm alone on this ... ...

No you're not.

mammasan

I am horrified that there are people who actually believe that Ayer's and the Weather Underground's violent activities are actually acceptable because of what the US government was doing in Vietnam. It is absolutely disgusting.

polaris

digster wrote:

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.

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 ...

polaris

mammasan wrote:

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.

so ... what is the solution? ... the sit ins and marches and viral campaigns aren't accomplishing a whole lot are they?

polaris

mammasan wrote:

I am horrified that there are people who actually believe that Ayer's and the Weather Underground's violent activities are actually acceptable because of what the US government was doing in Vietnam. It is absolutely disgusting.

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 ...

Uncle Leo

polaris wrote:

well ... i guess i'm alone on this ... ... i'll try and answer everyone in one post rather than multiple:

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?

Well alot of things piss me off. I better get into the basement and start making bombs.

digster

polaris wrote:

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 ...

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.

polaris

Uncle Leo wrote:

Well alot of things piss me off. I better get into the basement and start making bombs.

soooo ... you have no solution then? ... just sarcasm?

polaris

digster wrote:

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 otherwise. It demeans the legitimate and wide-ranging protest movement of the 1960's.

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 ...

digster

polaris wrote:

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.

polaris

digster wrote:

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.

well ... no one got hurt from any other bomb planted ... so, sure you can speculate on the potential but it never happened ... and i've said numerous times that i don't support any action that has human casualties ...

i'm all for MLK and Ghandi - but the fact of the matter was MLK was as much anti-war as he was for the civil rights movement ... and how successful was he? ... how successful is his legacy if the US continues to mount these wars in the name of greed?

mammasan

polaris wrote:

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 ...

Both actions are wrong. Yes the bombing of villages and the countless deaths is far worse but that doesn't mean that Ayer's actions are OK.

As to your other post, no sit in and marches don't do shit but that doesn't mean that we should resort to violence. Violence is never the answer.

Uncle Leo

polaris wrote:

soooo ... you have no solution then? ... just sarcasm?

I figured to win an argument vs. someone who thinks that bombing is the answer to how to express displeasure with govt. policy that I really did not need a strong argument. I kinda win by default.

Some have argued that the war protests were important for Vietnam. It's a tragedgy that we did not learn our lesson from Vietnam.

How far would MLK Jr. have gotten if bombing courthouses, buses, segregated businesses, etc. would have been his answer to everything? His movement would have been squashed like a bug.

I have cynicism about non violent protests myself. I participated in two DC war protests (that the liberal media grossly understated the crowds for) and obviously not much came of it.

So I may be light on solutions, but (to steal from the simpsons), I am not going to make the world a better place by blowing up a small part of it. A solution, which is obviously difficult to implement, is to have a less apathetic public. Those war protests, people either mocked the protesters or just did not care...back to American Idol.

inmytree

this is an interesting discussion...

I suppose it's easy to condemn ayers and his action...and for the record, I don't feel violence is answer to anything...

as I see it, I didn't live in the 60's and really have no real understanding of life during that time...I do know a draft was in place, a war was occurring and people were takin' to the streets....

It's interesting for us to attempt to have discussion about ayers, when we have little context of the world at the the time...

I know this is random, but in big fan of older movies from the 40's, 50's and 60's. As I watch them, I'm often taken back by what was acceptable behavior in those eras, the portrayal of blacks and women are shocking sometimes....the reason I bring this up is we now live in a different world...one much different that the environment in the 60's, thus it's easy for us to assume we know what happened and that it was right or wrong...

just my two cents...

polaris

Uncle Leo wrote:

I figured to win an argument vs. someone who thinks that bombing is the answer to how to express displeasure with govt. policy that I really did not need a strong argument. I kinda win by default.

Some have argued that the war protests were important for Vietnam. It's a tragedgy that we did not learn our lesson from Vietnam.

How far would MLK Jr. have gotten if bombing courthouses, buses, segregated businesses, etc. would have been his answer to everything? His movement would have been squashed like a bug.

I have cynicism about non violent protests myself. I participated in two DC war protests (that the liberal media grossly understated the crowds for) and obviously not much came of it.

So I may be light on solutions, but (to steal from the simpsons), I am not going to make the world a better place by blowing up a small part of it. A solution, which is obviously difficult to implement, is to have a less apathetic public. Those war protests, people either mocked the protesters or just did not care...back to American Idol.

i never said bombing was the answer ... clearly the extreme wings of PETA are doing things of this nature and it's not resulting in much ... i suppose showing sympathy for someone like Ayers is enuf for you to make that link - i guess i now know why republican attack ads work so well ...

the question is how far would the civil rights movement be without the black panthers (similar to Ayers - I'm not an expert on them by an stretch) but without the extreme sects - sometimes the moderates would never get heard ... my friend works for an environmental non-profit and he says gov't and business groups are far more willing to talk to him because they don't want to talk to the more extreme groups and he's always said that if it wasn't for those groups - he wouldn't be able to connect with his audience ...

cincybearcat

polaris wrote:

i never said bombing was the answer ... clearly the extreme wings of PETA are doing things of this nature and it's not resulting in much ... i suppose showing sympathy for someone like Ayers is enuf for you to make that link - i guess i now know why republican attack ads work so well ...

the question is how far would the civil rights movement be without the black panthers (similar to Ayers - I'm not an expert on them by an stretch) but without the extreme sects - sometimes the moderates would never get heard ... my friend works for an environmental non-profit and he says gov't and business groups are far more willing to talk to him because they don't want to talk to the more extreme groups and he's always said that if it wasn't for those groups - he wouldn't be able to connect with his audience ...

I personally think people like Ayers and others that use violence to try and change people's opinions do everyone, including their own cause, more harm then good.

polaris

cincybearcat wrote:

I personally think people like Ayers and others that use violence to try and change people's opinions do everyone, including their own cause, more harm then good.

but here we are in 2008 ... how many lives have been lost in iraq and afghanistan? ... how many more when they decide to go into some other land to protect economic interests? ... sure, i'd love to live in a world where a million people protest and someone will listen but sadly - in america, that's not working ...

dg1979us

polaris wrote:

but here we are in 2008 ... how many lives have been lost in iraq and afghanistan? ... how many more when they decide to go into some other land to protect economic interests? ... sure, i'd love to live in a world where a million people protest and someone will listen but sadly - in america, that's not working ...

What I dont understand, is what exactly do you think setting off bombs would do to deter the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you seriously think killing a few innocent people would make the government wake up and end the wars? Of course not, it would just divide the country even more, which isnt a good thing.

And for the record, the NYT had a story on Ayer's coincidentally, on 9/11/01, and this was his quote ”I don’t regret setting bombs,” Bill Ayers said. ”I feel we didn’t do enough.”

Unless he has changed his tune since then he is not remorseful. In saying all of this, I dont think it should be an issue with regards to Obama.

digster

polaris wrote:

well ... no one got hurt from any other bomb planted ... so, sure you can speculate on the potential but it never happened ... and i've said numerous times that i don't support any action that has human casualties ...

i'm all for MLK and Ghandi - but the fact of the matter was MLK was as much anti-war as he was for the civil rights movement ... and how successful was he? ... how successful is his legacy if the US continues to mount these wars in the name of greed?

Of course you speculate on the potential. You try to stop terrorist attacks because they "potentially" will kill others. If you have two kids playing with their fathers' gun they will only potentially be killed. But you know what? If you play with the gun enough, someone's getting shot. That's the problem with your argument; you can't take the "good" terrorism without the "bad" terrorism. If you keep setting off bombs in federal buildings you're eventually going to get somebody killed. That's not speculation; it's the reality of terrorism. You can't support bombings without acknowledging the possibility of innocent human casualties; you can't have the cake and eat it too. The question is whether you think that the moral righteousness of your cause is worth the death of innocents. There's no terrorism or bombings without the possibility of death.

And in regards to MLK, you're absolutely right when you say he was as anti-war as he was for equal rights. And he did it without subscribing to Ayers' philosophy. His non-violent actions got us civil rights legislation, Freedom Summer, non-violent protestations around the country and the world. What exactly is it that Ayers got us?

polaris

dg1979us wrote:

What I dont understand, is what exactly do you think setting off bombs would do to deter the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you seriously think killing a few innocent people would make the government wake up and end the wars? Of course not, it would just divide the country even more, which isnt a good thing.

And for the record, the NYT had a story on Ayer's coincidentally, on 9/11/01, and this was his quote ”I don’t regret setting bombs,” Bill Ayers said. ”I feel we didn’t do enough.”

Unless he has changed his tune since then he is not remorseful. In saying all of this, I dont think it should be an issue with regards to Obama.

firstly - how many times does one have to type that they don't advocate the killing of anyone before people get that? ... are our attention spans that short? ...

secondly - what would you read more based on these 2 headlines?:

1. 1,000 sit in to protest war
2. Pentagon bombed - protesting war

the article in the NY times was based on his memoir in which from what i can gather without actually reading it is loaded with regret - based on the op/ed in the WSJ ...

but, it's clear he doesn't regret the reasons by which he acted back then ... which i don't feel he should ...