Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
The actions of Ayers and others were more violent protest than anything else. They communicated their target in advance with a specific purpose. I don't believe anyone ever was injured from their actions aside from some of their own who apparently didn't practice safe bomb making...
That's not to say it's not violent, not wrong or something to admire...but to compare it to modern terrorism, where mass pain is inflicted often upon innocent's just isn't quite right...it's not the same thing.
|
Quite relevant to this discussion and Monday's attack on Boston...
The Weather Underground Organization has been talked about quite a few times in the news regarding previous bombings on US soil.
The Weathermen were referred to during their time and in legacy as terrorist. Whether bombing to create fear (or as you downplay it, "in violent protest") or bombing to maim, they are still terrorist acts. One action does not mean the other is excluded from the definition.
Terrorism, by it's very definition, is "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion."
Terrorism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
So, please explain how the Weathermen's planning bombings of government buildings, the CA state senator's office and banks as retaliation for Laos, Hanoi, Vietnam and others were not acts of terror.
The entire purpose driving the actions of the WUO was proclaimed by them as "the destruction of US imperialism and achieve a classless world: world communism".
Weatherman (organization)
"
The destruction of US imperialism"... boy, does that sound awfully familiar to current day terrorists.