It Was Not Terrorism - The Weather Underground (2003) Discussion

[–] doktorf 17 years ago

The Weather underground had a noble motive in the desire to illustrate the kind of horror the war represented to a population that was largely insulated from it. I was around in those times and I can well remember that the prevailing attitude toward the US involvement in Vietnam was apathy. Most people were *far* more opinionated about miniskirts. The Weathermen were a response to this. "Bring the war home" was the concept, let the people see it close up.

The motive, the intent came from a noble place, but let us not kid ourselves. The American revolutionaries that burned the houses of Tories, appropriated loyalist land and fortunes and destroyed cargoes were terrorists. John Brown who killed several people in an attempt to free slaves was a terrorist. The Weathermen were terrorists. Terrorism is a method, not a motive. We have an odd habit of only calling those who lose their cause or that we do not support terrorists while those who we support or who win their cause are freedom fighters or revolutionaries. Terrorism is a method of achieving goals. In some cases an efficient one, in others a horribly misguided one.

Much of the result depends on public perception of the acts involved and the best terrorists are masters of public relations. Al Quaeda has won many hearts and minds in the Islamic world by making big strikes against peoples they regard as enemies of their culture. This is also true of the American revolutionaries who made big strikes against enemies of their economy. The Weathermen hoped for something similar but even their modest actions, and they were really very modest, turned off many of the people they were trying to reach and particularly the students who they viewed as their built-in constituency because for the most part their non-violence agenda outweighed their anti-war agenda. In short, they didn't have the stomach for it no matter how much they might have agreed with the motive.

reply

[–] fredhoff 17 years ago

That's a fine post, Doktorf. You've done some deep and serious thinking about the Weather Underground. I appreciate your insights.

--Fredhoff--

reply

[–] ccr1633 17 years ago

"The Weather underground had a noble motive in the desire to illustrate the kind of horror the war represented to a population that was largely insulated from it. I was around in those times and I can well remember that the prevailing attitude toward the US involvement in Vietnam was apathy. Most people were *far* more opinionated about miniskirts. The Weathermen were a response to this. "Bring the war home" was the concept, let the people see it close up."
-------------------------------------------------------------------

I wasn't around to know in those days, but it would seem that Americans now are more than ever disconnected from the wars in which their military is engaged. At least back then there was a draft, which surely helped to stir some resentment among the average citizen when their sons came back home in a box. Nowadays, it's really easy for people to pay lip service to an anti-war stance, considering there's no threat they'll be enlisted against their will.

reply

[–] fredhoff 17 years ago

Agreed. An interesting twist is that it's also very easy to assume a PRO-war stance when you're not in danger of actually going to Iraq. I'm really sick of the bigmouths on IMDB and elsewhere who are all for blowing the stew out of the "terrorists" so long as there is no actual risk for themselves.

On the other hand, they're in exalted company. Most of the biggest cheerleaders for invading Iraq--Bush, Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Limbaugh, O' Reilly--avoided combat. As a matter of fact, Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, Limbaugh and O' Reilly never even wore a uniform. Hypocrisy, cowardice, or both?

reply

[–] ccr1633 16 years ago

"Hypocrisy, cowardice, or both?"
------------------------------------

I vote both. And man, you really said it fredhoff. These tough acting conservative AM radio talking heads are a sad joke, sad because so many people admire them and take their word as gospel.

reply

[–] doktorf 16 years ago

Agreed. An interesting twist is that it's also very easy to assume a PRO-war stance when you're not in danger of actually going to Iraq. I'm really sick of the bigmouths on IMDB and elsewhere who are all for blowing the stew out of the "terrorists" so long as there is no actual risk for themselves.

On the other hand, they're in exalted company. Most of the biggest cheerleaders for invading Iraq--Bush, Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Limbaugh, O' Reilly--avoided combat. As a matter of fact, Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, Limbaugh and O' Reilly never even wore a uniform. Hypocrisy, cowardice, or both?

This is a tough one. It's easy for an anti-war person to claim being "principled" when sitting out the action if they are a "coward" or not. The Weathermen were not cowards. Love them or hate them, they were on the frontlines risking it all. Even the great Confederates who fought for one of the world's worst causes were not cowards. The German Nazis had some of the bravest of the brave on their side. Your cause does not determine if you are a coward or not, that is merely a question of outlook. We should not judge warriors based on their courage, but the quality of their cause.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pythoner 16 years ago

"Firstly, they never killed anyone, and at one time when they did intend to, it went horribly wrong, helping them to realize that any loss of human life is tragic. "

Wrong-Google the Nyack Brinks truck robbery.

reply

[–] ccr1633 16 years ago

"Wrong-Google the Nyack Brinks truck robbery."
--------------------------------------------------

Wrong. By that point in time The Weathermen had already dissolved.

reply

[–] Mendel_Birnbaum 16 years ago

"Wrong- Google the Nyack Brinks truck robbery."

The Weather Underground had been disbanded for close to six years by the point of that robbery. Ex-WU members David Gilbert and a few others had joined the Black Liberation Army. The BLA carried out the attempted Nyack heist, not the WU. This was a terrible incident and IMO Gilbert deserves to be in prison for his role in the killings that occurred, but don't obscure the truth by muddying the facts. The WU were not in any way involved with the Nyack massacre.

reply

[–] pythoner 16 years ago

You're right I am so sorry for muddying the fact that the murderers were in using a different group name at that point.

reply

[–] Mendel_Birnbaum 16 years ago

If you're going to make an accusation make sure it's accurate. You're talking about murder here! You suggested that the Weather Underground organization were responsible for the Nyack murders and they were not. That was the Black Liberation Army, a group consisted mostly of African-American radicals and five or so ex-WU members (none of which where former leaders of the WU).

You can be outraged (and rightfully so) about the murders, but you should not try to obscure the facts. It makes your overall argument less credible, which is unfortunate in this case because your overall argument (the Nyack murders were a horrific crime) is correct.

reply

[–] abby8 16 years ago

I believe they killed a cop in a 1970 San Francisco bombing of a police station.

reply

[–] scion9 15 years ago

Yes, and several of their own members as well. It has been posited that Ayer's at the time girlfriend self-detonated the bomb planned for the Fort Dix dance, as she had vocally opposed the planned attack. That would have killed in the double digits and wounded likely in the triple. Dorhn and other WU leaders were definitely for it. WU didn't actively attempt to not kill people, especially the leadership.

Bill Ayers was and is a coward by any true revolutionary standards. He, like most of the WU, were also inadequate when it came to sufficiently radicalizing their base to commit the attrocities that they dreamed of. They weren't philanthropists avoiding loss of life among civilians, but were simply incompetent in perpetrating their revolution. They were more worried about getting caught than they were about carrying out their terrorist objectives.

reply

[–] Ddey65 15 years ago

The only thing making the actions of the Weather Underground different from those of the Ku Klux Klan was that they were on the opposite end of the political spectrum.

Never killed anybody? Guess again:

http://www.odmp.org/officer/8924-sergeant-brian-v.-mcdonnell
http://www.odmp.org/officer/5975-police-officer-harold-hamilton
http://www.odmp.org/officer/7348-officer-billy-michael-kaylor
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6808
http://www.odmp.org/officer/10136-sergeant-edward-j.-ogrady-jr.
http://www.odmp.org/officer/2372-police-officer-waverly-l.-brown

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Swoop187187 14 years ago

If you look on wikipedia, it lists the BPP and Weatherman right next to the Ku Klux Klan under Domestic Terrorists. Yeah... Right.

Firstly, they never killed anyone, and at one time when they did intend to, it went horribly wrong, helping them to realize that any loss of human life is tragic.

Secondly, they did not intend to instill fear in the average working class citizen (the majority) but rather the elite minority. Obviously their actions are starkly contrast with what comes to mind when terrorism is mentioned, the radical muslims of today who have no qualms about killing thousands indiscriminantly. To use the term terrorism in the WU's context is to use it as a pejorative, clearly.

Thoughts?

Sorry, they did kill people and were terrorists.

You just dont want to call them terrorists because thats a "bad word" and you dont want to see your friends labeled as "terrorists."

Once again reality isnt important to the left. Sorry to tell you just because you agree with the weathermans ideology doesn't mean they weren't terrorists.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Victorias_Secret 12 years ago

They were terrorists, but so was the founding fathers of the United States.

So what's the difference between a terrorist and a soldier? Or a cop?

Look at Occupy which is peaceful and the cops who come at 3:00 a.m. and violently attack the peaceful occupants with rubber bullets, pepper spray, flash bang grenades and other weapons. To me, that is terrorism.

Or look at the American and Israeli armies who killed many civilians who were not doing anything to deserve it.

Look at the bombing of Hiroshima which was genocide and yet Americans accused Germany of genocide as if our hands were clean.

The Weather Underground engaged in armed propaganda, not terrorism. They bombed symbolic targets to make a point, not to cause terror.

Terry
Your soul and your body are your own, and yours to do with as you wish.

reply

[–] ccr1633 12 years ago

Victorias_Secret wrote:
"Look at the bombing of Hiroshima which was genocide and yet Americans accused Germany of genocide as if our hands were clean."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I applaud much of the Weather Underground's efforts, but one reason they and their sympathizers get discredited are because of dumb arguments like the one I quote. Before getting all weepy with your historical revisionism of the motivations behind the dropping of the H bombs, you might want to first ask yourself what the general Japanese population was doing to combat its own government's genocides in China. What's that? They're still more blameless than Americans in your mind? The same Americans who didn't wish to see hundreds of thousands of their own citizens mutilated and killed in the bloody WWII battle for the Pacific that surely would've ensued absent the bombs?

reply

[–] Victorias_Secret 12 years ago

American lives being so much more valuable than Japanese lives, including the lives of children? Thinking like that is unspeakably ugly to me.

You ask whose lives are ”more” innocent than others. Children are more innocent than adults, especially soldiers. As members of a democracy, we are all more responsible than people living in a dictatorship. Yet you would hold the entire population of Hiroshima so guilty of the crimes of their government that they deserve to be exterminated? So I guess you feel the same way about the guilt of the American people over the crimes committed in Vietnam. Nah. Americans are special. Right?

Terry (one of the 99%)
Your soul and your body are your own, and yours to do with as you wish.

reply

[–] ccr1633 12 years ago

Victorias_Secret wrote:
"American lives being so much more valuable than Japanese lives, including the lives of children? Thinking like that is unspeakably ugly to me."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thinking otherwise if you're American is speakably stupid.

reply

[–] Victorias_Secret 12 years ago

ccr1633 says,

Victorias_Secret wrote:
"American lives being so much more valuable than Japanese lives, including the lives of children? Thinking like that is unspeakably ugly to me."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thinking otherwise if you're American is speakably stupid.

Stupid is siding with the 1% and eschewing things like universal health care because it's "socialist." Stupid is supporting bourgeois wars. Stupid is thinking people of one nationality are better than people of another nationality. To think American lives are better than Japanese lives just because one happens to be American is not only stupid, it's immoral.

Terry (one of the 99%)
Your soul and your body are your own, and yours to do with as you wish.

reply

[–] ccr1633 12 years ago

Victorias_Secret wrote:
"To think American lives are better than Japanese lives just because one happens to be American is not only stupid, it's immoral."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

False equivalence. Supporting the nuking of Japan does not in any way necessarily make one a believer in the superiority of one group over another. Instead, there was a simple choice presented, validated in my opinion by the specific stance the Japanese government was taking prior to Hiroshima. Either hundreds of thousands Americans die in a land invasion (as well as a comparable number of Japanese), or hundreds of thousands of Japanese die by bombing (sparing a great many American lives). As an American I would choose the latter option, without in any way stating that Japanese lives are inherently less important. Your conflation of those things is really the root of the stupidity here.

reply

[–] Victorias_Secret 12 years ago

So you justifying genocide does not mean you think American lives are more valuable than Japanese lives intrinsically. You just prefer it to more conventional kinds of war because, as an American, you favor whatever benefits your own side regardless of the cost to innocent lives. What a dismal world view!

Yes, I guess it was stupid of me to infer a racialist view on your part. Just a psychopathic one. I apologize.

Terry (one of the 99%)
Your soul and your body are your own, and yours to do with as you wish.

reply

[–] nyshyguy84 12 years ago

It doesn't mater that they diddn't kill anyone. They tries to is the bottom line. The bombings r kind of a giveaway.

reply

[–] ccr1633 12 years ago

nyshyguy84 wrote:
"It doesn't mater that they diddn't kill anyone. They tries to is the bottom line. The bombings r kind of a giveaway."
-------------------------------------------------------

Uhh...no. After the fiasco where the WU members blew themselves up accidentally in NYC whilst plotting to murder soldiers in New Jersey, the WU adopted a strict policy that none of their terrorist activities would do bodily harm to anybody. If you had the slightest clue you would've known that.

reply

[–] nyshyguy84 12 years ago

If u had the slightests clue u would know that the WU was a government creation ment to spy on the BP and other legit political and civil rights groups. Thats why me and other blacks fighting for our rights never took them or there bs propaganda seriously.

reply

[–] 06986 10 years ago

They were vile subhuman terrorists, plain and simple. Does not matter what their imaginary motivation was.

reply

[–] Sandoz 9 years ago

"They were vile subhuman terrorists, plain and simple. Does not matter what their imaginary motivation was."

--said a Colonist loyal to the Crown in 1777.

Hey look--I won an award for just showing up! Yay!!!

reply

[–] DelphinusMinor 10 years ago

You don't need to kill people in order to terrorize.

+++ Jason

reply