Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw
and you not only commended the individuals for what they did "after" but you excused and defended their actions at the time for various reasons....fundamentals...
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Only in your mind.
-spence
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
To be honest I find it more impressive that these people shed their violent past to be productive members of society. In some regards they're more model citizens than many.
-spence
|
The actions of Ayers and others were more violent protest than anything else.
I don't think Ayers was ever even convicted of any crimes.
Oh I do believe that bombs did indeed go off. They didn't kill people because the targets were warned in advance.
that they used small bombs hidden in out of the way locations (I've read a bathroom vent was the most common) with the threat phoned in advance...clearly shows the intent was not to kill as much as make a very dramatic statement.
I'm just curious, but you do realize there was a pretty big counter culture movement in the 1960's don't you?
I think that has to be evaluated in the context of the tension during the Vietnam era where frustrations over inaction or complicity with many issues (like the War and racial inequality) reached a boiling point. Some looked to more violent means to make a statement as peaceful methods didn't appear to be working. That's not to say it was right, but to ignore the societal climate these events were surrounded by would be irresponsible.
The war was the engine behind the radicalization. This wasn't a bunch of communists looking for a cause, their behavior was a by-product.
While Boudin was certainly implicated in the murder, she also didn't pull the trigger and was able to plea bargain a lesser sentence..
He was motivated by the war and racism in college.
Reading Ayers own writing it's clear that the shift to violent protest the war and race issues was precisely because more conventional means weren't getting a response.
-spence[/QUOTE]