Terrorists are people who use death to create terror in people. For example, muslim extremists blow up Jewish civilians to create a climate of terror in the Israeli populace, while the Israeli levels neighborhoods with missiles to do the same. These are acts of terrorism. Terrorists use our natural fear of death to terrorize us.
Bill Ayers, however, never killed anyone. He was a true American fighting against a government fighting a war he thought unjust, the Vietnam War. He bombed the outside of the Pentagon and an anti-unionist statue twice, killing no one. Once police were posted to guard the statue, he didn't bomb them. A terrorist would have. Therefore, the only labels that can be applied to him are "revolutionary" and "vandal", NOT terrorist.
http://billayers.wordpress.com/
Rust Never Sleeps
9 years ago
10 comments:
According to what I read, there was a casualty in a bombing done by Dohrn and I do remember a quote from Ayers (sorry couldn't find it) where he said he would not mind casualties. And btw. the definition of terrorism usually does not necessarily mean "killing".
Wiki Definition :
"Most common definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants. Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war."
So I think Ayers actions fit perfectly fine into this definition. You seem to be more a word juggler than you are interested in the actual meaning of things. But you like to be controversial and I think in a free society that is a god thing.
For me the Ayers association is more a symptom than a problem per se. It shows me that BO has over time shown inclinations to embrace associations with those who have radical ideas (birds of a feather flock together - right?). And that's why I don't think he is actually showing right now who he is. It's just a matter if you feel comfortable with that in terms of a presidency or not. I don't.
TAP
It is not me who is the word juggler, it's you. Terrorists have to create a state of terror to be termed terrorists.
"According to what I read, there was a casualty in a bombing done by Dohrn "
Yes, two of his fellow bomb makers died while making one of their bombs. Again, not terrorism.
Alien Patriot,
I can't access the link.
Again, Ayers did not disregard the safety of non-combatants, nor did he even manage to kill "combatants". For example, when "enemy combatants" were posted around the statue to protect its reconstruction, did he kill the combatants? No. He didn't any combatants and he didn't kill any non-combatants. He was not a terrorist.
Timothy McVeigh killed people. Lots of people. A whole building of non-combatants. Ayers did not. Right wingers should think this fact over before glibly stating that Ayers was a domestic terrorist, because it can be easily be pointed out that the biggest domestic terrorist was not a leftie radical, but a stone cold, right-wing nut.
"Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war."
So I think Ayers actions fit perfectly fine into this definition."
Only if we accept "some definitions" as valid primary defintions.
Ayers only damaged property. He did not kill anyone. He didn't terrorize anyone. At best he could be labeled a "radical" or maybe a "vandal".
"You seem to be more a word juggler than you are interested in the actual meaning of things. But you like to be controversial and I think in a free society that is a god thing."
I am not a word juggler. I am someone who believes that words have original, primary definitions. I also believe that secondary definitions are the result of 'drift', and in the case of politics, this drift is usually the result of intentionally dishonest or grossly incompetant use of terminology. This is why right wingers are thought of as idiots. They call Obama a "socialist", but Obama is not for socializing the means of productionm, which is the very definition of socialist. Obama is welfare state liberal. Welfare state liberals are pro-capitalist. Therefore, because Republicans are too fucking lazy to look up the real meaning of words, and seem content existing in their little made up world of definitions that don't exist, political words, over time, gain secondary meanings. Your defintion of terrorism is one of these secondary meanings. It is dishonest, stupid use of the primary meaning, and the only reason it has a secondary meaning is your intentional and/or stupid misuse words you don't know the definitions of.
I'm not sure where you get your definitions from, but let's take the one from dictionary.com
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.
So I don't know why he would not fit in there. Of course he put people in fear - what about the guys in house in which they threw firebombs - I saw an interview with the son, he was scared to death. Who wouldn't be?
State of fear doesn't mean that they whole state have to shit their pants, right?
Nothing in the definitions about people getting killed.
It seems that Dohrn and Ayers do fit in all these 3 categories of the definition.
Maybe you don't like those defintions, but so far I have not seen anything convincing from you that would change my mind.
But I'm just a grossly incompetent non-American right wing religious fascist moron in your view, and what are you?
TAP
"I'm not sure where you get your definitions from, but let's take the one from dictionary.com"
The Merriam Webster, of course;
Terror:
1: a state of intense fear
4: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands insurrection and revolutionary terror
Terrorism:
the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
"So I don't know why he would not fit in there."
Beacuse intense fear only occurs when one fears for one's life. No one fears intensely for a fucking statue!
"Of course he put people in fear - what about the guys in house in which they threw firebombs - I saw an interview with the son, he was scared to death. Who wouldn't be?"
Can't find this example and I am not going to take your word for it.
"State of fear doesn't mean that they whole state have to shit their pants, right?"
Yes, but it means that an act, usually a well-known, public act has to have occured that caused death. Many deaths. Mistakenly throwing a firebomb in a window you think not occupied is a mistake, not terrorism.
"Nothing in the definitions about people getting killed."
That's basically the only way to instill intense fear into populace and is why acts where citizens are killed are called terrorism. If I blow up a car with no one in it, and no one dies, you are not going to find people calling me a terrorist. They will call me a vandal. If I blow up carswithout people in them, but with a political objective, people will just call me stupid.
"But I'm just a grossly incompetent non-American right wing religious fascist moron in your view,"
Yup, you still are!
"and what are you?"
Your critic.
John M. Murtagh: Fire in the night
"We didn’t leave our burning house for fear of who might be waiting outside."
Right wing or left wing, a nut is a nut. Political ideology doesn't matter once a person decides to destroy public property or harm innocent people whether on purpose or accident Why are you still hug up over ideology? One does not excuse the other. No one on the right was defending McVay, yet the left is dismissing Ayers and supressing the link between Obama and Khalidi who is in fact, oh yeah, an actual Palestinian terrorist or does that not count because he is Palestinian and only targets Jews?.
"Though no one was ever caught or tried for the attempt on my family’s life,"
"One bottle full of gasoline had broken against the front steps, and flames scorched the overhanging wooden frame until its contents burnt out. In addition windows were broken, and another molotov cocktail caused paint charring on a car." - wiki
Sorry, as long as it is not proven, and as long as it seems to only be a scare attempt, Ayers can not be termed a terrorist. Radical, sure, and vandal, yup, but Terror is fundamentally different than instilling a little fear. Remember: intense, overwhelming fear = terror. Besides, no one knows who actually did it. It might have been the Black Panthers for all Murtagh knows.
This is another problem with the right. You use the weakest examples to justify your position. Bad definitions, bad examples. You are laughable at times.
It seems that if there is no God, BBS you come closest to being God, at least according to your own estimation. With your attitude, your limitless knowledge and your tendency to name calling, I'm not surprised that you feel lonely.
I wish you luck,
TAP
"Right wing or left wing, a nut is a nut."
And you are a censoristic, anti-free speech, anti-American, anti-Christian hack.
"Political ideology doesn't matter once a person decides to destroy public property"
Actually, yes it does. Ayers destroyed a statue that celebrated peoples' right to combine. It was a very American act.
"or harm innocent people whether on purpose or accident"
Murtagh was not hurt and by the sounds of how the cocktails were thrown, was not meant to be hurt.
Besides again, we don't know who actually did it, so the example is boneheaded.
"Why are you still hug up over ideology?"
I'm not. I consider my position economic. It is you who is indoctrinating.
"yet the left is dismissing Ayers and supressing the link between Obama"
The left? The welfare liberals are not left, bubbles. They are liberals, like you.
Please read above. Ayers did not kill anyone and thus didn't instill terror. Therefore the welfare liberals have good reason to protect the New Deal by exercising their free speech against the fearmongers on the right who are using a very weak example to try instill fear in the general populace. It's not working of course. Too many people have lost their jobs.
"and Khalidi who is in fact, oh yeah, an actual Palestinian terrorist or does that not count because he is Palestinian and only targets Jews?."
Sorry, dude, you failed again. The Palestinians and Israelis are both terrorists, because they are effectively at war. To call one side terroristic, but not the other side is dishonest.
"It seems that if there is no God,"
If yes.
"BBS you come closest to being God,"
I don't post on most of those boards. I'm simply encouraging forum discourse.
"at least according to your own estimation."
Me? Nah, I just demand honesty in one's definitions.
"With your attitude, your limitless knowledge and your tendency to name calling, I'm not surprised that you feel lonely."
What makes you think I am lonely
Post a Comment