William Ayers on NPR

[BeAChooser]

If there intent was to kill people they were grossly incompetent

I don't think many murderers or attempted murderers have gotten off because of that, gdnp.

I think the explanation most consistent with the known facts is that they did not intend to kill people.

Yeah. Sure. That's why they were building nail bombs. That's why the bomb in the San Francisco police station contained U-shaped, barbed wire fence post staples. The bomber wanted to scratch the paint.

Their actions were reckless.

Just reckless?

However, one could easily argue that calling in the warning with only a few minutes to spare was done so that the only potential response would be evacuation, as the bomb disposal team would not have time to arrive.

Oh the excuses for what was clearly a bombing that could have killed people.

If Donrn placed the bomb that killed the policeman she is guilty of murder. Clear enough?

So you'd agree she and Ayers would have reason not to be honest now about that if she did? Right?

Were the accusations that Ayers accuser made self-serving? I don't know. He wasn't cross-examined, was he?

That's right, gdnp. Unlike the WUO member who testified under oath before a Senate sub-committee, Ayers was not cross-examined. And while you may not see it, Ayers' statements about those days have tended to be quite self serving. For example in 2006 (after it was likely he heard Obama was going to run for President), he claimed on his website to have found a letter that he claimed he sent to the NYTimes in 2001 in response to an article that appeared in the NY Times at that time ... an article on an interview with him that quoted him saying "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." In that claimed letter he denied saying he had "no regrets for a love of explosives" (which the author of the article didn't actually put in quotes) but did not deny saying "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." Then in 2008, after this became a national issue in the Obama campaign, he published another statement on his website ... this one claiming that he didn't say those specific things. See how the facts have changed to suit his self-serving purposes?

Let it go.

Well maybe if Obama stops putting Clinton administration retreads into top staff and cabinet positions ... especially Hillary which rumor has it will be his Sec Of State ... I will.

Excuse me, I've been stating all along that he was a terrorist. Is that what you call "benefit of the doubt?".

Admitting Ayers and Dohrn were terrorists doesn't appear to be something that's a problem for some Obama supporters now. Could it be that they don't think that charge can actually do Obama any harm any longer? But an admission that Ayers and Dohrn actually are murderers or attempted murderers may be different. Maybe that could still harm Obama's planned agenda. And you seem to be giving them the benefit of the doubt in that regard.

 

[Sefarst]

As I say, my position is that destroying property is vandalism, whether you do it with a bomb or with a sledge hammer. Is it violent? Well, it is destructive. That's one kind of violence, like "a violent storm". Usually when we talk of "a violent criminal" though, we are speaking of one who harms people.

Very few storms are labeled "terrorist".

I don't think any storms are labeled terrorist because no storm has the intention of inspiring fear and intimidation. Storms are mindless weather patterns and it's kind of ridiculous to try and compare them to human organizations that have goals and use conscious methods to pursue them.

The fact remains that Bill Ayers was a member of an organization that issued a "Declaration of War" against the United States, threw molotov cocktails at a judge's home (where they also spray-painted "Kill the Pigs" on the pavement), and several of its members were killed trying to make a nail bomb. A nail bomb seems, to me, to have as it's sole goal to kill people with shrapnel. They also bombed the Pentagon, the bomb being left in the women's bathroom where any person could have walked in. It's unclear how much Ayers knew about these attacks specifically, but what we do know is that he didn't leave the organization until several years after them.

The fact that Ayers claims he never intended to kill anyone could be true, but I don't think it makes him any less of a terrorist. A terrorist is a person who seeks to inspire fear and intimidation in other people through violence. You seem to be playing pretty loose with the idea of what constitutes violence. The fact remains, however, that Ayers' actions were, at best, criminally negligent (anyone could have walked into that bathroom and been killed or anyone could have walked past the police statues and been killed when the bomb went off) and he exhibited a disgusting disregard for the lives of other people. I think Ayers may justify it to himself by saying that no one got killed from anything he DIRECTLY did -- a fact that seems to me to be more a result of luck and less one of intention. I've attended several political lectures about various leftist terrorist organizations in which the Weather Underground was mentioned and I can't shake the idea that they didn't really care if Pentagon workers were killed -- they didn't TRY to kill any of them but they wouldn't have been too concerned if a few did happen to die, it appears to me (further, that they caused so much damage such as was done to any classified information recorded on tapes that were damaged from water endangered our national security as well).

I'd be willing to say that Ayers is a reformed terrorist or a former terrorist, but I'm not willing to call him a vandal instead of a terrorist.

 

[gdnp]

I'd be willing to say that Ayers is a reformed terrorist or a former terrorist, but I'm not willing to call him a vandal instead of a terrorist.

Given his refusal to repudiate his prior violent acts, I would prefer the expression "former terrorist" to "reformed terrorist". I'm not so sure that given the correct circumstances he might not become a "future terrorist" as well.

 

[WildCat]

I am not excusing them. I am saying no terrorist act was committed with this bomb. Yes, they were wrong to build it and should have been tried and punished (the ones left alive) for owning illegal weapons, but in order to be a terrorist, you have to commit a terrorist act, which in my mind means attacking non-combatants.

Why is that so hard for you to believe?

I see. So you don't think Ahmed Ressam is a terrorist, correct? After all, his scheme, like the WU dance bombing scheme, was thwarted before it actually happened.

I guess your definition works, in Bizarro World...

Tricky? Is Ressam a terrorist?

 

[A'isha]

Admitting Ayers and Dohrn were terrorists doesn't appear to be something that's a problem for some Obama supporters now. Could it be that they don't think that charge can actually do Obama any harm any longer?

Heck, it could even be that we thought and freely acknowledged all this time that Ayers and Dohm were terrorists, and your and Whiplash's attempts to claim that anyone (rightly) contesting the rabid right's mischaracterization of Obama's relationship with Ayers is really a commie terrorist supporter is just a foolish ad-hominem.

 

[BeAChooser]

Heck, it could even be that we thought and freely acknowledged all this time that Ayers and Dohm were terrorists

Perhaps you should go back and read some of the past threads on Ayers.

For that matter, just read this one. The OP has this statement: " Is or was he a terrorist? No."

Tricky doesn't seem to think he's a terrorist, either.

And notice I used the word "some"?

 

[Cleon]

There's no statute of limitation on murder, Cleon. Or even attempted murder in most states under these circumstances.

And seeing as how Obama's relationship with Ayers has nothing whatsoever to do with any allegations of murder or attempted murder, this point is completely meaningless. Much like the rest of your "six degrees to William Ayers" blathering.

 

[A'isha]

Perhaps you should go back and read some of the past threads on Ayers.

For that matter, just read this one. The OP has this statement: " Is or was he a terrorist? No."

Tricky doesn't seem to think he's a terrorist, either.

And notice I used the word "some"?

Yes, your hypocritical pedantry is quite impressive.

 

[Tricky]

Tricky doesn't seem to think he's a terrorist, either.

Well ya know, I was alive when Ayers and his group were setting off their bombs. As I recall, there was a lot of outrage. There was a lot of anger. What there wasn't, was a lot of terror. I couldn't tell that many people felt like this was something that was going to alter the social or political landscape. They were regarded as "some crazy kids".

Neither have their activities survived the test of history. Until Clinton brought Ayers up, it is unlikely that anyone had thought of his sixties activism in many years. People had to be told who he was. Many reacted with something like, "Oh yeah. I remember that vaguely." Where was this outrage at Ayers that we are now seeing, during the last thirty years? Why hasn't he been an issue? Even with 9-11 being on everybody's lips, why did Ayers' name not get mentioned in the same breath? What were all these people who are suddenly outraged at Ayers doing for the last thirty years?

You know the answer. He wasn't important. He was old news. Only when Obama came to the forefront did that outrage begin to simmer anew. Would it be too much of a logical leap to suppose that this neo-outrage was because there was a politician to destroy? Would Americans really be so shallow? What in this thread could ever lead you to such a conclusion?

 

[gtc]

Where was this outrage at Ayers that we are now seeing, during the last thirty years?

That doesn't mean his actions weren't taken seriously. Remember, he was on the run for a good part of that time.

Also, your definition of terrorist is odd. A lack of outrage doesn't mean that he wasn't a terrorist. The IRA, the LTTE and various Islamist militant groups have freely raised funds and have recieved other forms of, more or less open, support from people in the US over the last three decade. And yet they were terrorists.

Why hasn't he been an issue? Even with 9-11 being on everybody's lips, why did Ayers' name not get mentioned in the same breath? What were all these people who are suddenly outraged at Ayers doing for the last thirty years?

Again, just because he hasn't been on the radar doesn't mean he is not a terrorist. This argument also amounts to a Tu Quoque - you shouldn't be classify him as a terrorist today because you weren't upset by him yesterday.

You know the answer. He wasn't important. He was old news. Only when Obama came to the forefront did that outrage begin to simmer anew. Would it be too much of a logical leap to suppose that this neo-outrage was because there was a politician to destroy? Would Americans really be so shallow? What in this thread could ever lead you to such a conclusion?

Whether or not some people are outraged about his actions only as a way to get at Obama does not mean that Ayers wasn't a terrorist. His actions are independent of people's outrage.

However, you are correct to an extent. It is only Obama's poor judgement in choosing to associate with people like Rev. Wright, Ayers and Khalidi that have brought these unsavoury characters back to public attention.

 

[DavidJames]

I think I figured out why McCain decided to base his campaign mostly on negative attacks on Obama, specifically his "associations" with these characters. Someone on his campaign staff must read this forum and mistakenly believed that the dull thinking, conspiracy oriented crowd seen here represented American voters.

 

[gdnp]

However, you are correct to an extent. It is only Obama's poor judgement in choosing to associate with people like Rev. Wright, Ayers and Khalidi that have brought these unsavoury characters back to public attention.

Yeah, I always run background checks on everyone before agreeing to serve on the board of directors of a charitable foundation. You can't be too careful.

 

[gtc]

Yeah, I always run background checks on everyone before agreeing to serve on the board of directors of a charitable foundation. You can't be too careful.

You don't think Obama ought to have known who Ayers was? It's not like he has kept his views or his past secret all this time.

 

[gdnp]

You don't think Obama ought to have known who Ayers was? It's not like he has kept his views or his past secret all this time.

Nor is it likely that he introduced himself "High, I'm Bill Ayers, former weather underground terrorist."

 

[tomwaits]

Well ya know, I was alive when Ayers and his group were setting off their bombs. As I recall, there was a lot of outrage. There was a lot of anger. What there wasn't, was a lot of terror. I couldn't tell that many people felt like this was something that was going to alter the social or political landscape. They were regarded as "some crazy kids".

Neither have their activities survived the test of history. Until Clinton brought Ayers up, it is unlikely that anyone had thought of his sixties activism in many years. People had to be told who he was. Many reacted with something like, "Oh yeah. I remember that vaguely." Where was this outrage at Ayers that we are now seeing, during the last thirty years? Why hasn't he been an issue? Even with 9-11 being on everybody's lips, why did Ayers' name not get mentioned in the same breath? What were all these people who are suddenly outraged at Ayers doing for the last thirty years?

You know the answer. He wasn't important. He was old news. Only when Obama came to the forefront did that outrage begin to simmer anew. Would it be too much of a logical leap to suppose that this neo-outrage was because there was a politician to destroy? Would Americans really be so shallow? What in this thread could ever lead you to such a conclusion?

I don't really follow you here. First, you decided to defend him by saying he was a smart guy. Now, you are trying to admonish critics of Ayers by saying "where was the outrage before??" The answer is simple: he wasn't in the news before. I can't control what the media talks about, or who Good Morning America decides to interview. I didn't start this thread.

Obama's supposed association with Ayers may have been a complete crock, but that doesn't make Ayers immune from criticism for his public statements. He doesn't seem remorseful at all of being in a terrorist organization, and I find that reprehensible. Nothing more to it.

 

[Wangler]

Wow,

Reading alot of these posts, it's really, really hard to believe that this thread is on a skeptics forum.

Go figure.

 

[gtc]

Nor is it likely that he introduced himself "High, I'm Bill Ayers, former weather underground terrorist."

Novel. I'll give you that.

 

[Tricky]

I don't really follow you here. First, you decided to defend him by saying he was a smart guy. Now, you are trying to admonish critics of Ayers by saying "where was the outrage before??"

I don't follow you here. What does Ayers being smart or not have to do with the newness of the outrage? Ayers does appear to be fairly smart. Some here have claimed that he was so smart he wrote Obama's book for him.

The answer is simple: he wasn't in the news before. I can't control what the media talks about, or who Good Morning America decides to interview. I didn't start this thread.

That is correct he wasn't an issue until Clinton, then McCain made him an issue. There are some here suggesting that Obama should have taken issue with him and by not doing so, showed bad judgment, yet few if any here would have even recognized the name a year ago. Their outrage is clearly a product of the writings of some wonks in the campaign of Obama's opponents. That is the only reason he is an issue.

And this is not uncommon. You can probably think of quite a few things that wouldn't and shouldn't have been issues, but some group of politicians decided to make them issues, like in the (fictional) movie, Wag the Dog.

Obama's supposed association with Ayers may have been a complete crock, but that doesn't make Ayers immune from criticism for his public statements. He doesn't seem remorseful at all of being in a terrorist organization, and I find that reprehensible. Nothing more to it.

I've read his statements a different way, and not the tightly edited cherries you see picked here. He has clearly expressed remorse for the criminal way his protests took place. He has not abandoned the political stances which led him to take those criminal actions.

 

[Lonewulf]

Novel. I'll give you that.

Can you please explain when and how the subject would have had to come up?

 

[gdnp]

That is correct he wasn't an issue until Clinton, then McCain made him an issue. There are some here suggesting that Obama should have taken issue with him and by not doing so, showed bad judgment, yet few if any here would have even recognized the name a year ago. Their outrage is clearly a product of the writings of some wonks in the campaign of Obama's opponents. That is the only reason he is an issue.

What bothers me is that Obama's association with Ayers is taken as an example of Obama's poor judgment. Yet where were the protests when the University of Illinois hired him? Where were the protests at his book signings? Where were the protests when they made him a Distinguished Professor? Where were the protests when Annenberg gave him multimillion dollar grants? Where were the protests when Chicago named him Man of the Year?

At the time that Obama worked with him Ayers was a respected member of the establishment. It's akin to criticizing Jimmy Carter for working with former Nazi Kurt Waldheim...who just happened to be UN secretary general.