It's just grotesque that you give this scumbag a forum. His wife is a murderer who got off on a technicality, and he wishes he had been a more competent terrorist. His Weather Underground killed cops, and also killed each other trying to build a giant pipe bomb meant for murdering soldiers at Ft. Dix.

The guy dedicates his books to cop killers and other criminal sleaze like Sirhan Sirhan. Ayers toasts the man that murdered Robert Kennedy.

He's not a good guy, he's human trash who just happens to be a genuine communist with an advanced degree--credentials that make him forgivable for any sin in his circle of Marxists in the education establishment. Well, any sin? Would they forgive him if he'd been trying to kill abortion doctors instead of policemen?

Spit.

Why wasn't Ayres asked about the murders or killings as a result of the armed robberies and bombings?

Because he wasn't involved in any.

The only deaths that resulted from Weathermen activities were three of their own who died when the bomb they were constructing went off.

They made a point of targeting property and carefully warning people away from their targets.

You said:

What about the ensuing holocaust in neighboring Cambodia?

The root cause of that tragedy was the bombing of Cambodia by Nixon and Kissinger after the U.S. overthrew Prince Sihanouk and replaced him with Lon Nol.

You know, if some foreign power overthrew the President, then bombed the U.S. like the U.S. bombed Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War (in which more bombs were dropped then World Wars I and II combined, not to mention tons of agent orange) I guarantee you the U.S. would turn into a hell hole, with renegade bands running wild killing people for a loaf of bread or some gasoline. But by your logic, the foreign power would be absolved of guilt, and would bear no responsibility for the mayhem which followed.

People like you who justify the Viet Nam war and its consequences are murderers, just like the politicians and generals who carried it out.

Terror (from Merriam Webster Online): violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands

ter·ror·ism

Pronunciation:

ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm

Function:

noun

Date:

1795

: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

If setting off bombs in government buildings isn't terrorism, and being the guy in charge of ordering people to do isn't a terrorist, then what and who on earth is?

Can't everybody be wrong? The people who ordered a bad war in Vietnam, and the people who chose to fight it by setting off bombs in buildings?

Dinitia Smith, who wrote the piece that was most unserendipitously published in the NY Times edition of 9/11/01, significantly distorted Ayers's views, as Ayers himself protested in a letter to the editor published in the NYT on 9/15/01 (quoted in Daily Kos, 10/9/08):

She [Dinitia Smith] and I spoke a lot about regrets, about loss, about attempts to account for one’s life. I never said I had any love for explosives, and anyone who knows me found that headline sensationalistic nonsense. I said I had a thousand regrets, but no regrets for opposing the war with every ounce of my strength. I told her that in light of the indiscriminate murder of millions of Vietnamese, we showed remarkable restraint, and that while we tried to sound a piercing alarm in those years, in fact we didn’t do enough to stop the war.

Anybody who's ever been interviewed for a newspaper article and then read the article knows how utterly commonplace it is for the interviewer to make serious errors of fact and interpretation. Furthermore, it's pretty obvious from the 9/11 article that Smith went into her interview with Ayers with her mind already made up about his book, and that she was not carefully listening to him in the interview, and heard only what she had already decided she was going to hear.

Whatever else one may think about Ayers, his patience and self-restraint during the months of this campaign have been remarkable.

One questions screams to be asked in all these interviews: the bomb that exploded in Greenwich village was intended for an officer's dance at Fort Dix. And had nails and stuff in it for added damage... Did he know about it? Would he have approved of such tactics? Does he stand against those tactics now, or regret them?

I did not witness that time, but as I understand it some people were quite radicalized. I thought that the weathermen, among others, did believe violence in the face of violence (Vietnam, etc,) was okay.

I've yet to see an interview that prods him to address this issue. He says, "they misquoted me." But then he never says, "and I think bombs that hurt people for any cause is wrong," or better, "I thought that then, and now, wiser, I'm glad we never did that."

Has anyone seen an answer?

This was so informative. Bill Ayers sounds so very sensible and how lovely whenever I hear a man say such nice things about his wife of many years. I feel sure Bill Ayers is a good man and I do wish he could have an opportunity to discuss "things" with Obama, but like he says, it probably will not happen. Thanks again for this. shelby

For months we've been hearing about Ayers, and how he and Obama were terrorist pals.

There were several things wrong with this. The most important is that Ayers and Obama simply lived in different times. Obama doesn't understand those times any more than I do.

What has my generation, who grew up in the 80s, really learned about history?

I'm sure some of them were rather nice, humane even. Maybe they were even, dare we say, liberal? However history has made its judgment and the Khmer Rouge come out on the poor end of that evaluation. And to be fair, just because some of your friends are violent sociopaths doesn't mean you are. But it does at least bring the surface the question of why they were your friends.

For my money I'll take the view of Todd Gitlin who as a founder of the SDS saw it eventually not for what it turned into but into what it always was. After the Port Huron Declaration the SDS movement essentially did nothing and accomplished nothing. There's no shame in saying that. the Weathermen, coming on the tails of that and declaring that more violence is the answer especially when none of the people saying that are actually prepared for the revolution that they want everyone to do for them, is just being blockheaded and dull.

Sorry Bill, I'm sure you're a nice guy. But you're a misguided ideologue and an unapologetic zealot the world has no use for. Stop asking us to apologize to you for that. But I'm sure there's some old Red Army Faction leftovers still in Germany who would support you.