William Ayers on NPR

[FaisonMars]

I wish he had spoken out during the campaign, but at least he's talking now.

http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13&prgDate=11-18-2008&view=storyview

Is or was he a terrorist? No. Was he seriously misguided? Yes. Is there any substantial connection between him and Obama? No. If some right-wing nutjob kills Ayers, will it be on McCain's and Palin's heads? Yes.

 

[tomwaits]

He's an idiot. That's all I care to know about him.

 

[Tailgater]

And if he accidently killed someone, would that make a difference to you?

Softballs from useful idiots and other useful idiots lapping it up.

Do you think the death of his friends and girlfriend were on his head? I doubt it. He has no regrets. He's just happy he wasn't killed making that nail bomb and has a bunch of losers who forgive all and follow him like mansonites because they agree with his ideology.

 

[Tricky]

He's an idiot. That's all I care to know about him.

It is certainly your decision whether or not to investigate his life. He is hardly an iconic presence in American history. His only real relevance today is that he was used as a tool to try to smear Barak Obama.

He is a college professor and an author. He is involved in charitable work. His words, while you may disagree with them, are easy to parse and understand.

He probably doen't try to sum up complex personalities with three words.

He is not an idiot.

 

[FaisonMars]

And if he accidently killed someone, would that make a difference to you?

I don't agree with his actions in the W.U. at all-- their acts of vandalism were dangerous and ineffective. And, I would add, despicable.

Do you think the death of his friends and girlfriend were on his head? I

Yes-- he says as much in the interview.

 

[Tailgater]

I don't agree with his actions in the W.U. at all-- their acts of vandalism were dangerous and ineffective. And, I would add, despicable.

Yes-- he says as much in the interview.

He must not have felt too bad. He was involved in at least 3 more bombings and married afterward, but keep lapping it up. He was a domestic terrorist. He's Tim Mcviegh without the intent to kill and the chance to spend the rest of his life making excuses and repenting long enough for people to start lapping it up.

I find it ironic in the interview that he says the weather undeground never killed anyone, yet his friends were killed making a bomb that was designed mainly for injuring people.

ETA: I quit listening after a few minutes of him trying to excuse himself of wrongdoing using examples of moral equivalence.

 

[FaisonMars]

I wouldn't compare him with Tim McVeigh, he's more like that guy who bombed Sterling Hall at the University of Wisconsin in 1970... the intent was not to terrorize, the intent was to disrupt the war efforts. An astronomer was killed in that bombing, and the perpetrators went to jail for their stupid, misguided, despicable act of vandalism and involuntary manslaughter.

I think Ayers should have gone to jail for his actions with the W.U., it sounds like he would have been happy to go, but he got off on a technicality. It sounds like he's done good work in Chicago since those days.

Do you think that patriots should head to Chicago and take up arms against Ayers, as it seems Palin and McCain were encouraging? I mean, if he's a terrorist, then he's a threat to the state, right?

 

[tomwaits]

It is certainly your decision whether or not to investigate his life. He is hardly an iconic presence in American history. His only real relevance today is that he was used as a tool to try to smear Barak Obama.

First off, I haven't investigated his life. I hadn't heard of him until the "connection" with Obama. I never thought much of it, and it certainly didn't influence my vote. I only heard one of his post-election interviews because they were playing it on the Roe Conn show, a humorous radio talk show that I like to listen to on my way home from work. However, his being a professor in Chicago certainly makes him locally relevant to me.

He is a college professor and an author.

Sorry, but I've known some pretty idiotic professors/authors in my time. I was one of the students of Kevin Barrett's infamous Islam class.

He is involved in charitable work.

Good for him. Not relevant.

His words, while you may disagree with them, are easy to parse and understand.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean. He's not an idiot because he's eloquent?

He probably doen't try to sum up complex personalities with three words.

He certainly loves to sum up complex historical events in few words:

"Let's remember that what you call a violent past that was at a time when thousands of people were being murdered by our government every month, and those of us who fought to end the war were actually on the right side," he said.

 

[Tricky]

First off, I haven't investigated his life. I hadn't heard of him until the "connection" with Obama. I never thought much of it, and it certainly didn't influence my vote. I only heard one of his post-election interviews because they were playing it on the Roe Conn show, a humorous radio talk show that I like to listen to on my way home from work. However, his being a professor in Chicago certainly makes him locally relevant to me.

If he is locally relevant to you, then you might not want to dismiss him so quickly.

Sorry, but I've known some pretty idiotic professors/authors in my time. I was one of the students of Kevin Barrett's infamous Islam class.

So you knew a professor whose intelligence you didn't respect. How does that make Ayers an idiot?

Not sure what this is supposed to mean. He's not an idiot because he's eloquent?

Most people who can express themselves clearly are not idiots, even if you don't agree with them.

He certainly loves to sum up complex historical events in few words:

You read a selected quote and you figure that's all he said?

It sounds to me that you are basing your judgment on his "idiocy" on the fact that he did something long ago that you find reprehensible. If that is truly "all you need to know", good for you. Don't expect it to win you many points with skeptics. They usually request a little more evidence.

 

[gdnp]

I listened to the interview, and it was good to get his perspective. Especially his claim that no innocent people were killed with Weather Underground bombs: BAC claimed that they killed a policeman, but Ayers specifically denied involvement of the Weather Underground with that bombing.

I disagree with his assessment that he is not a terrorist. Setting bombs is a terrorist act regardless of whether you intend to injure people or not. The only non-terrorist excuse for placing bombs is to cause strategic damage, and the WU did little of that, and what they did (like at the pentagon) was accidental. So I think what they did was terrorism despite his denials, just as a cross burning by the KKK or clinic bombing by abortion opponents is terrorism. Does the great evil you are fighting justify terrorist actions? Well, terrorists always believe so. It's for each of us to decide.

That being said, I think he paid a certain price by living on the run for a decade, and since that time he has done a lot to give back to the community. We will each have to decide whether he has redeemed himself.

 

[Cicero]

He is a college professor and an author. He is involved in charitable work. His words, while you may disagree with them, are easy to parse and understand.

He is not an idiot.

He is Timothy Leary in reverse. Ayers was a whack job before his education (although from his remarks, he appears to remain one), while Leary became a whack job after his education.

It seems teaching positions at higher learning institutions are the final refuge for the misguided misfits like Ayres, Leonard Jeffries and Ward Churchill. Yet is Larry Summers who is forced to resign as Harvard's President for making the most innocuous comment.

 

[Tricky]

I disagree with his assessment that he is not a terrorist. Setting bombs is a terrorist act regardless of whether you intend to injure people or not. The only non-terrorist excuse for placing bombs is to cause strategic damage, and the WU did little of that, and what they did (like at the pentagon) was accidental. So I think what they did was terrorism despite his denials, just as a cross burning by the KKK or clinic bombing by abortion opponents is terrorism. Does the great evil you are fighting justify terrorist actions? Well, terrorists always believe so. It's for each of us to decide.

I disagree. Terrorism, in my mind, involves targeting non-combatants for attack. Damaging property is vandalism, even if your vandalism has a political point. While it is true the bombs might have injured innocent people, that was certainly not their target.

Ayers believed that the US attacks in Vietnam, where bombs and napalm were dropped on women and children who happened to be near where combatants might have been located, was terrorism. That is certainly an debatable point. If the argument is that "soldiers can't be terrorists", it is a very weak one. I am deeply ashamed of the way the government of the country I love, fought that war.

 

[Cicero]

I disagree. Terrorism, in my mind, involves targeting non-combatants for attack. Damaging property is vandalism, even if your vandalism has a political point. While it is true the bombs might have injured innocent people, that was certainly not their target.

Ayers believed that the US attacks in Vietnam, where bombs and napalm were dropped on women and children who happened to be near where combatants might have been located, was terrorism. That is certainly an debatable point. If the argument is that "soldiers can't be terrorists", it is a very weak one. I am deeply ashamed of the way the government of the country I love, fought that war.

Right. Until Nixon implemented Linebacker I & II, the war was not being fought to win, as in get the North to sign the peace treaty.

 

[gdnp]

I see the use of violence or the threat of violence as terrorism. The bombs may not have killed anyone, but they had the potential to do so. They were designed to instill fear.

Graffiti is vandalism. Chance of innocent people getting injured: zero. Bombs in public places are terrorism, even if directed towards property.

 

[Lonewulf]

Bomb placing makes you a terrorist, regardless of whether you intend to injure people or not?

****, that makes a lot of kids with cherry bombs terrorists...

 

[Tricky]

I see the use of violence or the threat of violence as terrorism. The bombs may not have killed anyone, but they had the potential to do so. They were designed to instill fear.

We shall have to disagree here.

Graffiti is vandalism. Chance of innocent people getting injured: zero. Bombs in public places are terrorism, even if directed towards property.

Graffiti is often directed to cause fear, especially gang graffiti. It implies, or sometimes even states, a threat of violence. I maintain that you must be targeting non-combatants to be a terrorist. Otherwise, many "prank" activities which have some potential of harming people, would have to be classified as terrorism. Setting firecrackers, as Lonewulf notes.

 

[Whiplash]

Bomb placing makes you a terrorist, regardless of whether you intend to injure people or not?

****, that makes a lot of kids with cherry bombs terrorists...

Are they placing them with the direct intent of trying to affect political or social change?

 

[Tricky]

If destroying someone's property in order to effect political or social change amounts to terrorism, the the Boston Tea Party was a terrorist activity.

 

[gdnp]

Graffiti is often directed to cause fear, especially gang graffiti. It implies, or sometimes even states, a threat of violence. I maintain that you must be targeting non-combatants to be a terrorist. Otherwise, many "prank" activities which have some potential of harming people, would have to be classified as terrorism. Setting firecrackers, as Lonewulf notes.

Point taken. Graffiti containing threats is terrorism: spraypainting swastikas in a synagogue, for instance. And firecrackers placed as pranks are, as you say, vandalism. If, however, you right an inflammatory letter to the editor of the local paper and someone places a cherry bomb in your mailbox, it is terrorism: using violence to threaten a critic into silence.

 

[gdnp]

If destroying someone's property in order to effect political or social change amounts to terrorism, the the Boston Tea Party was a terrorist activity.

Well, the property was not destroyed in a way likely to cause injury. However, an argument could be made that the Tea Party was a terrorist activity. Not the most heinous, but it has been argued that the Sons of Liberty were a terrorist organization.

One man's freedom fighter...