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.
well ... agree to disagree ... i'm all for peaceful protests and such but it is clear that has not worked and we are entering into a 6th year in iraq ...
Comments
well ... agree to disagree ... i'm all for peaceful protests and such but it is clear that has not worked and we are entering into a 6th year in iraq ...