Bill Ayers

polaris

digster wrote:

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?

how many bombs have PETA blown up and how many innocent people have died? ...

as for your second point - it's subjective in that one could say that his movement would not have been as effective without a group like the black panthers ... similarily - without Ayers - maybe the conscienceness of the general public would not have been raised to the point that ultimately resulted in the withdrawal of troops from vietnam ... you can't say for sure either way ...

brandon10

Did Ayers spend any time in prison? And if the answer is no, then why not?


And my next question is about rehabilitation. Do you think Ayers is close to the same person he was 40 years ago? Because Obama never even knew that guy. Kind of reminds me of Morgan Freeman's character in Shawshank redemption. People can change I believe, and turn their motivation into doing good. And it seems that is exactly what he has done.

polaris

brandon10 wrote:

Did Ayers spend any time in prison? And if the answer is no, then why not?


And my next question is about rehabilitation. Do you think Ayers is close to the same person he was 40 years ago? Because Obama never even knew that guy. Kind of reminds me of Morgan Freeman's character in Shawshank redemption. People can change I believe, and turn their motivation into doing good. And it seems that is exactly what he has done.

no ... he avoided jail time because of screwups by the police/fbi ... illegal wiretapping and stuff like that ...

if you read Ayers bio for the last 20 some odd years - you'd be hard pressed to consider him anything but a positive contributor to society ...

brandon10

polaris wrote:

no ... he avoided jail time because of screwups by the police/fbi ... illegal wiretapping and stuff like that ...

if you read Ayers bio for the last 20 some odd years - you'd be hard pressed to consider him anything but a positive contributor to society ...

You seem to know a little more about him than I. What involvement has he ever admitted to pertaining to the bombing aspects of the organization?

polaris

brandon10 wrote:

You seem to know a little more about him than I. What involvement has he ever admitted to pertaining to the bombing aspects of the organization?

honestly, i don't know shit about him ... just a few articles ...

i think you can wiki him and do a basic search and it'll tell you probably more than i know ... but i'm pretty sure he's acknowledged his role in the bombings - some things he regrets some he doesn't ...

brandon10

It blows my mind that McCain/Palin are using this guy to bash Obama. It basically proves that they are appealing to the lowest IQ's in the country. Gotta make sure they win the dumb vote!!

dg1979us

polaris wrote:

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 ...

You are confusing me a bit here, or maybe I am just missing something. You say his memoir is loaded with regret, but he doesnt regret the reasons by which he acted. So, what exactly does he regret then?

And headlines are meaningless. If someone bombed the pentagon do you feel that would provide results, where as protesting is just a meaningless gesture? I am honestly asking and trying to get what you are saying. Ayer's actions are not conducive to solving problems. In fact, I think they almost do the opposite because his opinion and views would get over looked because the bombs would be the big story. At least with a peaceful protest the war is still the focus, not the death of or injury of innocent civilians or government workers.

Dirtie_Frank

polaris wrote:

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 ...

With this thinking if there was a bomb detonated at the Pentagon, for example. any peacful protest would be met with negativity, at least in my opinion.

digster

polaris wrote:

how many bombs have PETA blown up and how many innocent people have died? ...

as for your second point - it's subjective in that one could say that his movement would not have been as effective without a group like the black panthers ... similarily - without Ayers - maybe the conscienceness of the general public would not have been raised to the point that ultimately resulted in the withdrawal of troops from vietnam ... you can't say for sure either way ...

I may be wrong, but last time I checked PETA was blowing up any buildings. I wonder if innocent people have died, however, if they have done so.

Look, you can't have it both ways. You are saying that you agree with the necessity of the bombings where the buildings were warned ahead of time. Fair enough. So let's say Monday's bombing goes off without any loss of life, and Tuesday's bombing is conducted in an identical matter but people die. What is it, exactly, that makes Monday's bombing more justifiable then Tuesday's bombing? It was simply chance that the death happened on Tuesday as opposed to Monday. What if police officers are killed or injured during the bombing; are they expendable? You have to be willing to accept the possibility of death or injury to innocent people if you advocate such practices; you're setting bombs off in public places! Many people may believe that the cause is worth the bloodshed, and that's another argument entirely from the one we're having. But as I've said, there's no "good" terrorism. If you set bombs off in public places, you must acknowledge that it could lead to death or injury or you're just kidding yourself.

You're right, I can't say for sure whether Ayers' bombings led to any significant changes. I can say for sure that MLK's inspiration and practices led to pressure for the government to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 65. I'd rather go with the sure thing that as a nice byproduct does not use violence as a means to an end.

Vedderlution_Baby

I don't know enough about Ayers and the weatherman group to have any kind of educated opinion on what they did but commenting on the Mccain campaign trying to link Ayers and Obama:


It's complete bullshit that only trying to stir up undecided voters but instead, it's making their base, the people who were already voting for them, foam at the god damn mouth. It takes about five minutes to figure out just how close Obama is to Ayers and that it's a bullshit Ace in the hole that turns out to be a fucking Joker. And if it were me, and they started to played the "guilt by association" shit, I would bring up Palin's secessionist ties in a heart beat and wail on that drum until everyone's ears exploded.

keithjam

Isn't G. Gordon Liddy, a terrorist friends with McCain. From Wikipedia:

Liddy's connections to John McCain

In 1998 Liddy hosted a fundraiser at his house for John McCain's re-election campaign at which guests could have their pictures taken with McCain and Liddy.[6] Over the years, Liddy, who has referred to McCain as "an old friend," has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns -- including $1,000 in 2008. When David Letterman asked McCain about his relationship with Liddy, McCain said, "I know Gordon Liddy. He paid his debt. He went to prison and paid his debt, as people do. I'm not in any way embarrassed to know Gordon Liddy."[7]

Collin

I don't have a problem with bombing the pentagon if you are absolutely sure there will be no victims and when your actions can stop, or at least slow down the slaughter of innocent people. It appears this happened. But once you take lives yourself, you are defeating your own purpose. I cannot condemn a nail bomb. It "only" killed three people, wheatherpeople, but it was intended for a crowd.

Ayers has stated he does not regret the bombings, in fact he has no regrets at all. I don't know, his close friends (and girlfriend?) made a nail bomb intended to kill several people but it exploded in their faces and killed them instead. Yet he feels they didn't do enough bombings.

So, I have no problem with nonviolent resistance, but it seems his organisation was more than willing to resort to violence.

scb wrote:

No you're not.

Rudd's fellow Weatherperson Cathy Wilkerson's critical ZNet review calls Ayers "inaccurate," and sees the book as "a cynical, superficial romp . . . making these struggles seem like a glorious carnival."10 Speaking of Ayers's descriptions of his relations with women, she notes his:

"...absolute lack of reflection since then . . . Ayers relates his relentless sexual encounters without the slightest trace of awareness that some of these encounters might not have been so positive for the woman . . . He indicates no awareness that he might have used his privileges to provoke women to give him access to a vulnerability that he was unable to honor."

http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue41/Lemisch41.htm


edit: Ah yes, the original topic. Obama is not automatically guilty by association and Ayers is guilty of crimes in the past. I read Ayers is a professor and a education theorist. I heard Obama discussed education with him, though I'm not sure about this.

Collin

double post

polaris

dg1979us wrote:

You are confusing me a bit here, or maybe I am just missing something. You say his memoir is loaded with regret, but he doesnt regret the reasons by which he acted. So, what exactly does he regret then?

And headlines are meaningless. If someone bombed the pentagon do you feel that would provide results, where as protesting is just a meaningless gesture? I am honestly asking and trying to get what you are saying. Ayer's actions are not conducive to solving problems. In fact, I think they almost do the opposite because his opinion and views would get over looked because the bombs would be the big story. At least with a peaceful protest the war is still the focus, not the death of or injury of innocent civilians or government workers.

from what i gather - he regrets how certain aspects of their campaign went particularly to the point where they making that bomb in greenwich village - but he does not regret the reasons why he acted ... he believed that they needed to raise the conscienceness of americans about an immoral war ... something that has repeated itself time again since ...

headlines are important because it's about raising awareness ... people in the US needed to see what was really happening - sometimes we easily shield ourselves from the horrors outside our doorsteps and we need to be waken up ...

it's happening STILL TODAY ... what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan is an absolute nightmare and people sit idly by ...

polaris

digster wrote:

I may be wrong, but last time I checked PETA was blowing up any buildings. I wonder if innocent people have died, however, if they have done so.

Look, you can't have it both ways. You are saying that you agree with the necessity of the bombings where the buildings were warned ahead of time. Fair enough. So let's say Monday's bombing goes off without any loss of life, and Tuesday's bombing is conducted in an identical matter but people die. What is it, exactly, that makes Monday's bombing more justifiable then Tuesday's bombing? It was simply chance that the death happened on Tuesday as opposed to Monday. What if police officers are killed or injured during the bombing; are they expendable? You have to be willing to accept the possibility of death or injury to innocent people if you advocate such practices; you're setting bombs off in public places! Many people may believe that the cause is worth the bloodshed, and that's another argument entirely from the one we're having. But as I've said, there's no "good" terrorism. If you set bombs off in public places, you must acknowledge that it could lead to death or injury or you're just kidding yourself.

You're right, I can't say for sure whether Ayers' bombings led to any significant changes. I can say for sure that MLK's inspiration and practices led to pressure for the government to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 65. I'd rather go with the sure thing that as a nice byproduct does not use violence as a means to an end.

i'm not too sure what you said in your first sentence ...

i don't think you can approach this so black and white ... it wasn't like they were planting 25 bombs a day without any planning ... if you choose to look at strictly the means - then there really isn't a discussion here ... you say no bombs whatsoever - which is fine - it's your opinion ... i just don't see it like that ... i see it as this was a time when americans needed to awake to the horrors happening in asia and this was a means ... rachel corrie died standing in front of an israeli bulldozer - that was peaceful ... but yet she's no longer with us ... although i don't advocate death - there is ALWAYS that risk with action ...

how do you know the black panthers aren't responsible as well!??

prytoj

Collin wrote:

Obama is not automatically guilty by association and Ayers is guilty of crimes in the past. I read Ayers is a professor and a education theorist. I heard Obama discussed education with him, though I'm not sure about this.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/20/obama-praised-searing-timely-book-ayers/

a more detailed explanation of the charges realting to the book Ayers wrote.

Ayers and Obama have known eachother a long time.

mammasan

digster wrote:

I may be wrong, but last time I checked PETA was blowing up any buildings. I wonder if innocent people have died, however, if they have done so.

Look, you can't have it both ways. You are saying that you agree with the necessity of the bombings where the buildings were warned ahead of time. Fair enough. So let's say Monday's bombing goes off without any loss of life, and Tuesday's bombing is conducted in an identical matter but people die. What is it, exactly, that makes Monday's bombing more justifiable then Tuesday's bombing? It was simply chance that the death happened on Tuesday as opposed to Monday. What if police officers are killed or injured during the bombing; are they expendable? You have to be willing to accept the possibility of death or injury to innocent people if you advocate such practices; you're setting bombs off in public places! Many people may believe that the cause is worth the bloodshed, and that's another argument entirely from the one we're having. But as I've said, there's no "good" terrorism. If you set bombs off in public places, you must acknowledge that it could lead to death or injury or you're just kidding yourself.

You're right, I can't say for sure whether Ayers' bombings led to any significant changes. I can say for sure that MLK's inspiration and practices led to pressure for the government to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 65. I'd rather go with the sure thing that as a nice byproduct does not use violence as a means to an end.

Nicely said.

inmytree

boy, I'm glad Ayers is not running for president, because I wouldn't vote for him....

digster

prytoj wrote:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/20/obama-praised-searing-timely-book-ayers/

a more detailed explanation of the charges realting to the book Ayers wrote.

Ayers and Obama have known eachother a long time.

Why is then that no media organization that has conducted an investigation has found that the two have a significant friendship? Even the harshest tie Fox News can seem to find is a book review Obama did for one of Ayers' books.

I'm not one to pass the blame to the opposing side, but do we really want to start comparing unsavory associations between these two candidates? Because it will not be flattering to Obama, and it certainly would not be flattering to McCain.

digster

polaris wrote:

i'm not too sure what you said in your first sentence ...

i don't think you can approach this so black and white ... it wasn't like they were planting 25 bombs a day without any planning ... if you choose to look at strictly the means - then there really isn't a discussion here ... you say no bombs whatsoever - which is fine - it's your opinion ... i just don't see it like that ... i see it as this was a time when americans needed to awake to the horrors happening in asia and this was a means ... rachel corrie died standing in front of an israeli bulldozer - that was peaceful ... but yet she's no longer with us ... although i don't advocate death - there is ALWAYS that risk with action ...

how do you know the black panthers aren't responsible as well!??

My point was very simple, and I'm not trying to condemn Ayers as a human being. We are talking about his actions.

You said that your position was that you supported the bombings of the federal buildings (the kind you described Ayers as advocating) provided that they did not lead to the loss of human life. I'm saying that is a false choice, and an impossible position to take. With the destruction of buildings, the kind of "terrorism" we're talking about here, if you advocate the bombings and decry the loss of human life you're refusing to accept that the type of bombings we're talking about can lead to human life. If PETA refuses to accept that notion, then they're sticking their head in the stand just as much. If Ayers or PETA or whoever believe that their cause is so just and necessary that human lives must be risked, that's another argument entirely.

The difference between Rachel Corrie and Bill Ayers is that Rachel made that decision for herself. Ayers, or rather the type of terrorism Ayers and the Weathermen practiced, made that decision for somebody else. Rachel had every right to do what she did, and I consider giving your life for a cause you believe in an incredible act of integrity and virtue. But it's your choice. If someone uninvolved with the cause had died in the bombings we're talking about, that would not have been their choice. And you cannot ignore that fact if you advocate the methods that Ayers used.