• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bill Ayers Defends Weather Underground Bombings

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Bill Ayers defends Weather Underground bombings - Local - Ohio

U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., committed daily war crimes in Vietnam and I get asked about violence when what I did was some destruction of property to issue a scream and cry against an illegal war in which 6,000 people a week are being killed, Ayers said. Six thousand a week being killed and I destroyed some property. Show me the equivalence. You should ask John McCain that question. I'm against violence.

There is, of course, no equivalence between the Weather Underground bombings and what McCain did. McCain as a fighter pilot in Vietnam was acting on the legal and moral authority of a democratic nation, the United States, while Ayers was committing criminal terroristic acts of violence. Again and again Ayers claims that McCain's actions and the actions of the United States were illegal, but that's only his opinion, an opinion most any legal authority would acknowledge is completely wrong. There is no responsible legal entity that would claim that war in defense of national self interest, in this case as one chapter of the Cold War, is not a legitimate act of a sovereign nation. I know of no one outside of fringe radicals who claims that LBJ committed troops to Vietnam illegally.

The Weather Underground per se did not kill anyone although in some of their bombings they showed no concern for the possiblity of casualties. Former members of the organization killed three policemen shortly after the group fell apart, apparently in pursuit of revolutionary aims. The Weather Underground on at least one occasion built a bomb meant to be an antipersonnel device, a nail bomb, but it went off prematurely and killed three of their own members instead. Ayers now looks back and tries to claim credit for avoiding deaths, but the nail bomb they tried to build puts the lie to this claim, and Ayers and his ilk should receive no credit just for being poor bomb makers.

Oddly enough, the acts of the Boston bombers might be more legitimate than Ayer's bombings were if they were acting on behalf of a foreign power at war with the United States. As acts of war they are not, strictly speaking, criminal matters. If they are just a couple of nut cases who imagined themselves as acting on behalf of some cause without any real authority to do so, then it's a criminal matter, of course.
 
Last edited:
Sure glad we can let a radical leftist get a teaching job and mold young minds huh!
 
Government approval of death and destruction doesn't make it inherently "moral."

Sure glad we can let a radical leftist get a teaching job and mold young minds huh!

A teaching job regarding a subject they're personally familiar with: our system of incarceration and rehabilitation.
 
Sounds like a regretful plea to be liked. Like his buddy Obama, the only place he can get an audience is at schools.
 
Who cares?

Yay, he defended his own actions, big deal. Let me know when Obama defends that and we'll have an issue.
 
What's funny is that the common distinction that those on the right are almost always sure to make is the distinction between violence that targets government/military vs. violence that targets civilians. The Weather Underground targeted government buildings, issued evacuation warnings and, if I recall correctly, nobody died in any of the bombings. In much of the Vietnam War, however, civilians were rounded up by some people in the military and killed - sometimes in atrocious, gratuitous ways. Therefore, by the right's own logic (particularly, by the logic of those who have been suggesting violence as response to gun control legislation), the WUO's actions were more legitimate than certain actions in the Vietnam War just as Ayers is saying. Color me surprised that certain people on the right abandon that logic when 1) someone on the left uses it, 2) the American military is criticized.

*Don't bother responding to me by saying that I approve of the WUO's violence or that I hate American troops or some other predictable response. I don't.
 
The veitnam war was a controversial war and not everyone agreed with our involvement there.

Is it really neccesary to reopen old wounds of that era?
 
Cool. Today he is still a damn good teacher.
 
He's obviously stretching the intellectual history to a thin point. The whole point of the Weathermen faction of the SDS was to indict the pacifist ways of the pre-1969 faction that was in control (including Todd Gitlin and Tom Hayden) and argue that the United States needed violence in order to change. Even his interviews for the most popular documentary make the violent turn evident. After some mishaps they wanted to ensure that civilians were not hurt, but that came as a result of questioning their belief that there were no more innocents in the age of Nixonian "moral majority." They still subscribed to violent action. That's why they bothered with the bombs in the first place. The fact that they attempted to make sure that no one was injured as a result of the bombs does nothing to curtail the criticism from the old pacifist wing of the SDS.
 
Cool. Today he is still a damn good teacher.

For the children, perhaps. Otherwise, his ideas are very troubling. There is no reason why young teachers should be told that it is a good idea to constantly undermine the administrators, destroy school communication property, and act like it is a good thing to create factions within a school building.

His anti-establishment behavior seriously ruined the worth of his otherwise blabbering nonsense about education.
 
Government approval of death and destruction doesn't make it inherently "moral."

Or legal. The bombing of Cambodia was meant to starve the population, which is a war crime and a terrorist policy
 
The veitnam war was a controversial war and not everyone agreed with our involvement there.

Is it really neccesary to reopen old wounds of that era?

Yeah, that would be like bringing up Bush when discussing Obama!
 
What's funny is that the common distinction that those on the right are almost always sure to make is the distinction between violence that targets government/military vs. violence that targets civilians. The Weather Underground targeted government buildings, issued evacuation warnings and, if I recall correctly, nobody died in any of the bombings. In much of the Vietnam War, however, civilians were rounded up by some people in the military and killed - sometimes in atrocious, gratuitous ways. Therefore, by the right's own logic (particularly, by the logic of those who have been suggesting violence as response to gun control legislation), the WUO's actions were more legitimate than certain actions in the Vietnam War just as Ayers is saying. Color me surprised that certain people on the right abandon that logic when 1) someone on the left uses it, 2) the American military is criticized.

*Don't bother responding to me by saying that I approve of the WUO's violence or that I hate American troops or some other predictable response. I don't.

You couldn't sell that to Gitlin or the others. To them, they became utterly twisted, left in the dust by the other sections of the Left. There's absolutely no reason to defend Ayers.
 
And you know that how? The asshat should still be in jail, he can write his defense of the WU from there.

Saying he is a renown teacher about philosophy of teaching..
 
Saying he is a renown teacher about philosophy of teaching..

Have you read his material? It's absolutely bland as hell. Then when you get to the other lessons he wanted to impart on teacher education students, my God. That crap would get you canned so quick.
 
Saying he is a renown teacher about philosophy of teaching..

"renowned"? No, infamous, yes. He won his fame and carved his niche in academia from it. Just a political Kardashian.
 
who was discussing Obama, learn to read

The first person to mention Obama is Ray. Which is typical. I'm actually surprised he didn't include a gratuitous mention of homosexuals.

Nobody said Bush until you did. Congratulations.
 
You couldn't sell that to Gitlin or the others. To them, they became utterly twisted, left in the dust by the other sections of the Left. There's absolutely no reason to defend Ayers.
I'm not trying to "sell" anything. And who is defending Ayers?
 
Who cares?

Yay, he defended his own actions, big deal. Let me know when Obama defends that and we'll have an issue.

Yes, we know... Ayers held the first fundraiser for Obama at his house to launch his political career, they worked together and were friends for years, but Obama does not support his views. Just as Rev. Wright was Obama's "spiritual mentor" and friend for more than 20 years, who baptized his children and performed the Obama's marriage ceremony, but of course Obama does not support his views either. Let's not forget that according to Obama's own writings, Communist Frank Marshall Davis was his childhood "mentor" and a close family friend who also relocated to Chicago from Hawaii... But once again, Obama does not support his views either.

We've heard this all before and it just goes to show how right this is.
 
Back
Top Bottom