William Ayers on NPR

[Tailgater]

Well, good thing definitions are not based on opinions, because body count has nothing to do with being a terrorist.

ter⋅ror⋅ist   /ˈtɛrərɪst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ter-er-ist] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3. (formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
–adjective 5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics.

a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

n. One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.
adj. Of or relating to terrorism.
ter'ror·is'tic adj.

ter⋅ror⋅ism   /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

 

[Tailgater]

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.

People did not avoid the dock in fear of getting hit by a flying box, did they?

 

[Tailgater]

Later in 1969, Ayers participated in planting a bomb at a statue dedicated to riot police casualties in the 1886 Haymarket Riot confrontation between labor supporters and the police.[11] The blast broke almost 100 windows and blew pieces of the statue onto the nearby Kennedy Expressway.

This kind of blast instills fear among people. It's really amazing no one was seriously hurt. Key blasts by Ayers made people afraid to go to work at a government agency. The whole point of terrorism. Body count has nothing to do with terrorism. The word itself has nothing to do with death. It has to do with making people do things through fear of getting hurt.

 

[Tailgater]

Nevertheless, you cannot simply extrapolate your beliefs into a definite future occurrance. That might have been a plan. That plan might have changed. There is simply no way to tell for sure. Best do go on what actuall DID happen, and what DID happen was nothing, as far as killing non-combatants goes.

You wouldn't call a man a murderer because he ows a gun, would you? Sure, it COULD be used to murder, but to extrapolate would be an error.

You would make a great defense attorney for the next broken terrorist cell.

"C'mon yer honor, with all that fertilizer, those boys might have wanted to become farmers. There is just no way to be sure what the plan was."

 

[gdnp]

You would make a great defense attorney for the next broken terrorist cell.

"C'mon yer honor, with all that fertilizer, those boys might have wanted to become farmers. There is just no way to be sure what the plan was."

It is my understanding that every other bomb that the WU set off was done with ample warning to evacuate the affected area. Thus no one was killed in any of the WU bombings before or after the explosion that killed the 3 bombmakers.

Ayers does not know exactly what was planned for that bomb. He speculates that his girlfriend set it off on purpose to save innocent lives, which I see as wishful thinking. I still do not see it as out of the realm of possibility that they planned to phone in a warning just as they did with their others. Or these 3 members may have decided to move to more radical tactics. I have heard no claim that Ayers supported changing the focus of WU bombings from property to people.

As I have stated before, I still see this as terrorism because of the inherent threat of injury or death and the political motivation. A loan shark is a loan shark whether he breaks your kneecap or threatens to break your kneecap.

 

[Bikewer]

I listened to the interview as well; I was just starting in law enforcement back then. I well recall the explosion that killed the bomb-making "Weathermen".

I have some sympathy for the guy, even though I condemn the use of such tactics for "political expression". No matter how carefully one might place one's "device", innocents can always be killed or injured.

Still, I thought one of his final statements had some credibility. When asked if he'd apologize, he said he'd be glad to take part in a "mass" apology including all the administration types participating in a rather ugly episode in our history.

 

[Lonewulf]

Well, good thing definitions are not based on opinions, because body count has nothing to do with being a terrorist.

ter⋅ror⋅ist   /ˈtɛrərɪst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ter-er-ist] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3. (formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
–adjective 5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics.

Oh man. I wore a scary Halloween mask and scared a little girl. Looks like I'm a terrorist.

So glad the definition is black and white, but man. Now I'm going to have to go to Gitmo.

 

[Tricky]

Well, good thing definitions are not based on opinions, because body count has nothing to do with being a terrorist.

ter⋅ror⋅ist   /ˈtɛrərɪst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ter-er-ist] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3. (formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
–adjective 5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics.

a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

n. One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.
adj. Of or relating to terrorism.
ter'ror·is'tic adj.

ter⋅ror⋅ism   /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

By many of those definitions, the US was a terrorist nation for their actions in Vietnam, which is why Ayers pursued his path.

I'm all for throwing the word "terrorism" away. It is a hot-button word that people fling around too loosely. The actions of Ayers were in no way as dangerous as the actions of Al Qaeda or of McVeigh. It is stretching honesty to equate them by using the same word. AQ and McVeigh are mass murderers. Ayers' group were not.

Is mass murder acceptable in war by calling it "collateral damage"? Is that not simply a rationalization for approving of terroristic acts?

 

[Tailgater]

Oh man. I wore a scary Halloween mask and scared a little girl. Looks like I'm a terrorist.

So glad the definition is black and white, but man. Now I'm going to have to go to Gitmo.

Now you're just being silly.

It at least makes you a big meanie.

 

[Lonewulf]

Now you're just being silly.

It at least makes you a big meanie.

Well, yes, that's always been self-evident...

But the definition there is silly. Someone that inspires terror and frightens others? "Terror" is just a stronger word for "fear". By this definition, causing fear makes someone a terrorist. It's a useless definition.

The first definition just backs up the second. The third pertains to a specific group. The fourth is like the third. The fifth just backs up the second as an adjective.

In short, causing fear makes you a terrorist... I'm sorry, but that definition just doesn't seem strong enough. It makes the man with a scary mask in Halloween a terrorist.

 

[applecorped]

Well, yes, that's always been self-evident...

But the definition there is silly. Someone that inspires terror and frightens others? "Terror" is just a stronger word for "fear". By this definition, causing fear makes someone a terrorist. It's a useless definition.

The first definition just backs up the second. The third pertains to a specific group. The fourth is like the third. The fifth just backs up the second as an adjective.

In short, causing fear makes you a terrorist... I'm sorry, but that definition just doesn't seem strong enough. It makes the man with a scary mask in Halloween a terrorist.

Does the man in the halloween mask have explosives?


Using powerful explosives to instill fear in others does indeed make one a terrorist. An unrepentant one at that.

 

[Tailgater]

By many of those definitions, the US was a terrorist nation for their actions in Vietnam, which is why Ayers pursued his path.

I'm all for throwing the word "terrorism" away. It is a hot-button word that people fling around too loosely. The actions of Ayers were in no way as dangerous as the actions of Al Qaeda or of McVeigh. It is stretching honesty to equate them by using the same word. AQ and McVeigh are mass murderers. Ayers' group were not.

Is mass murder acceptable in war by calling it "collateral damage"? Is that not simply a rationalization for approving of terroristic acts?

Seperating "terrorism" into categories would be fine by me. Kind of like involuntary manslaughter and first degree murder?


The problem with creating moral equivalence to an actual war is where to seperate individual acts of soldiers, questionable bombing campaigns, rogue orders from officers, and the justification of being involved in the war. Some acts of "terrorism" in war involve unavoidable acts of violence and some escalate to that point even though the original orders were not intended to be that way. A village might have to be ordered raided to cut supplies to the enemy and not to commit genocide while there, but that's not how things always go down.

Ayers blows up a statue built in honor of police killed in the line of duty generations before he was born? Twice? The NYPD? Those targets barely have relation to his cause. I get the Capitol and Pentagon. Regardless, of no one being hurt, would you want to be a government worker having to face the possibility of a bomb going off? Jokes aside, that's why it is terrorism. That is real fear. Not Halloween mask fear. If they can blow themselves up, they could just as easily blow someone else up unintentionally. There is always a time between planting a bomb and making sure the areas is clear that is a crucial risk for people dying.

The problem I have with Ayers is everything he spouts ends with a "but". "well, I did this wrong, but....". I could have hurt someone, but they killed..." Everything he does is about equating what he did wrong to the evil government or the "what I did wasn't as bad as this group over here" crap. That is where I compare him to Mcviegh and not because of the severity of the bombs.

Someone made a comment about him living in hiding being punishment enough. I'll have to look back on that. Excuse me, but HE WAS STILL BOMBING STUFF then and even managed to get married. I think people who actually went to prison for their crimes would disagree with that being punishment.

 

[Tricky]

Using powerful explosives to instill fear in others does indeed make one a terrorist. An unrepentant one at that.

You mean like testing a hydrogen bomb?

 

[Tailgater]

Well, yes, that's always been self-evident...

But the definition there is silly. Someone that inspires terror and frightens others? "Terror" is just a stronger word for "fear". By this definition, causing fear makes someone a terrorist. It's a useless definition.

The first definition just backs up the second. The third pertains to a specific group. The fourth is like the third. The fifth just backs up the second as an adjective.

In short, causing fear makes you a terrorist... I'm sorry, but that definition just doesn't seem strong enough. It makes the man with a scary mask in Halloween a terrorist.

I understand your point, and it doesn't take out the shades of gray involving fear, but it does mean there doesn't have to be a body count for there to be a terrorist act or intent to commit one. Terrorism is based more on fear than dead bodies. The debate after that is what degree of fear can someone cause before being labeled a terrorist.

 

[Tricky]

I understand your point, and it doesn't take out the shades of gray involving fear, but it does mean there doesn't have to be a body count for there to be a terrorist act or intent to commit one. Terrorism is based more on fear than dead bodies. The debate after that is what degree of fear can someone cause before being labeled a terrorist.

So if we had "degrees of terrorism" like degrees of manslaughter, then it might make sense to call Ayers a "third degree terrorist", as opposed to a "first degree terrorist" like McVeigh.

 

[Tailgater]

You mean like testing a hydrogen bomb?

Is the guy pushing the button wearing a Halloween mask? If so, then yes.

 

[IchabodPlain]

You mean like testing a hydrogen bomb?

No political or social objective. Military/science objective? Yes.

Violence intended to instill fear or terror to further a political or social agenda. That's the definition I have always worked with.

 

[Tailgater]

So if we had "degrees of terrorism" like degrees of manslaughter, then it might make sense to call Ayers a "third degree terrorist", as opposed to a "first degree terrorist" like McVeigh.

Ya, or threat level orange, defcon three, and lasers set to stun. They were similar in the misguided focus of where to direct their anger at the government, but very different in the severity of the actions. Both could be classified as domestic terrorists.

For the record, I'm not speaking in this thread in defense of how Ayers was used in the election or that he's connected with Obama in any way other than Chicago politics. I have equal distate for that as people trying to prop him up as a heroic 60s figure using a war as moral equivalence for individual actions.

 

[Tricky]

No political or social objective. Military/science objective? Yes.

Violence intended to instill fear or terror to further a political or social agenda. That's the definition I have always worked with.

That's not much of a distinction. Any military man will tell you that bomb tests are as much about scaring your enemies as it is testing your weapons. You think that such tests serve no political or social agenda?

You are essentially saying, "If I agree with your political/social agenda, it's okay. If I don't, you're terrorists."

 

[Tricky]

For the record, I'm not speaking in this thread in defense of how Ayers was used in the election or that he's connected with Obama in any way other than Chicago politics. I have equal distate for that as people trying to prop him up as a heroic 60s figure using a war as moral equivalence for individual actions.

I'm not calling him a hero either. Ayers was a criminal who should have been punished for his criminal acts. He is not the equivalent of McVeigh or Osama bin Laden. His crimes have been blown far out of proportion in order to serve a political/social agenda.