Death Penalty

William Ayers, and Bernardine Dohrn . . . . I didn't think I could kill another human being . . unprovoked . . . I'd pull the trigger with a bead on the eyes of both of them with no loss of sleep of my part.

I'd like to shake their hands and congratulate them.

Bighead wrote:

I'd like to shake their hands and congratulate them.

Happy New Year BigHead.

Bighead wrote:

I'd like to shake their hands and congratulate them.

And why is that?

Prob. because them two proves that the system does work.

The "magic negro" has that effect.

Quote :

Happy New Year BigHead.

Thanks, Nitro. Same to you.

Quote :

Prob. because them two proves that the system does work.

And you're partially right, Mike.

But more to the point: The way I see it, these two folks FOUGHT for what they believed in. And considering what our government was doing at the time, it was arguably justified. It wasn't particularly productive, but it was courageous... and it is a pretty good example of the sort of idealism-in-action that I admire (even though I don't seem to possess it, myself?).

I don't entirely agree with their ideology or methods... but they raised hell for what they believed in, and came out smellin' like a rose. I gotta commend that. And they're both still making a real contribution to society.



But just out of curiosity, Scifi- what brought on this little ejaculation of indignation? Been listening to too much Hannity lately?

Do you have any of that indignation left for those responsible for killing millions of brown people and tens of thousands of our own? Or did you just blow your wad?

Bighead If you didn't see the game slickjay posted go try it. You'll love it.

Bighead wrote:

but it was courageous...

Cowardice, just like any damn terrorist. All that aside, I truly wish you and yours a Happy New Year, Bighead.

Thanks- happy new year yerself.

While it doesn't directly pertain to Ayers & company, I think a Ward Churchill quote is called for here:

Quote :

The men who flew the missions against the WTC and Pentagon were not "cowards." That distinction properly belongs to the "firm-jawed lads" who delighted in flying stealth aircraft through the undefended airspace of Baghdad, dropping payload after payload of bombs on anyone unfortunate enough to be below, including tens of thousands of genuinely innocent civilians, while themselves incurring all the risk one might expect during a visit to the local video arcade.

I've made that argument too. Not that stealth pilots are cowards, but that the 9/11 hijackers and suicide bombers are not. Crazy or misguided yes, but blowing yourself up to kill who you see as your enemy is not what I consider cowardice. We give our own troops posthumous medals for suicide missions.

Ratzilla wrote:

I've made that argument too. Not that stealth pilots are cowards, but that the 9/11 hijackers and suicide bombers are not. Crazy or misguided yes, but blowing yourself up to kill who you see as your enemy is not what I consider cowardice

It's complete cowardice . . . what's wrong with you guys?? Terrorism is cowardice incarnate. Sheesh, where's EP?

SciFi wrote:

Ratzilla wrote:

I've made that argument too. Not that stealth pilots are cowards, but that the 9/11 hijackers and suicide bombers are not. Crazy or misguided yes, but blowing yourself up to kill who you see as your enemy is not what I consider cowardice

It's complete cowardice . . . what's wrong with you guys?? Terrorism is cowardice incarnate. Sheesh, where's EP?

If one of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan had stuck and an airman gave his own life to dislodge it knowing full well that thousands of civilians would die, he'd be called a brave American hero who made the ultimate sacrifice. But if you don't like someone who kills themself while trying to kill his enemies he's a coward. Please explain this curious belief.

You appear to be equating bravery with your view of good and evil. But the greatest hero can be a quivering coward who was thrust into a situation and the most evil man on the planet can face death without a flinch. Stating that it takes bravery to willingly die for a cause is not a celebration of the deed.

mikecc wrote:

Prob. because them two proves that the system does work.

Im talking about the whole PC/love thy faggot/ letting a Negro beleive he is anything more than three fifths of a man/ hippie ass SanFrancisco -Califironia, lets make love not war bullshit. And the people that hid him.

Ratzilla wrote:

If one of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan had stuck and an airman gave his own life to dislodge it . . .

A bit off topic . . . again . . . I keep doing that, but Ratz what was that movie where the guy did just as you wrote? I remember him riding the bomb down while waving his cowboy hat and whooping as if he was riding a bronc.

SciFi wrote:

It's complete cowardice . . . what's wrong with you guys?? Terrorism is cowardice incarnate. Sheesh, where's EP?

Ok, simply repeating a claim won't do much to convince people. Care to explain how and why terrorist=coward? You know... demonstrate exactly how they lack courage. Better yet- contrast their demonstrated lack of courage with those brave souls who drop bombs from 30,000 feet.

mikecc wrote:

mikecc wrote:

Prob. because them two proves that the system does work.

Im talking about the whole PC/love thy faggot/ letting a Negro beleive he is anything more than three fifths of a man/ hippie ass SanFrancisco -Califironia, lets make love not war bullshit. And the people that hid him.

Care to elaborate?

Bighead wrote:

Ok, simply repeating a claim won't do much to convince people. Care to explain how and why terrorist=coward?

Religious fervor = bravery?

I never said that... and you're really gonna have to stretch your definition of religion to include these weather underground folks. 'Ideological fervor' just doesn't have the same ring.

I've already stated why I reckon these two terrorists were courageous- they fought for what they believed, at great personal risk. The same logic could be applied to most "terrorists". That doesn't make them right... doesn't mean that I necessarily like them...

You've made the counter-claim that terrorists are cowards. Fine- please demonstrate exactly how they lack courage- preferably a lack of courage compared to folks that you'd find more honorable, such as those firm-jawed lads. Otherwise it looks to me like politically-motivated name-calling.

I'm gonna re-post this because I think it's highly relevant to the discussion at hand... and you didn't bother to answer my questions:

Bighead wrote:

But just out of curiosity, Scifi- what brought on this little ejaculation of indignation? Been listening to too much Hannity lately?

Do you have any of that indignation left for those responsible for killing millions of brown people and tens of thousands of our own? Or did you just blow your wad?

Usually it is not the driver that sets the device off. It is set by remote, i.e. a cell phone hooked to a detonator. When the car with the explosives reaches a certain point, then the # is called, and kablewie!!! The driver is most likely stoned out his mind, and drives a certain route on any given day, not knowing wheather this is the day it explodes, or even if the car is loaded that day.
they drive the routes and its like a job to them. The rest of the time is spent high, and listening to religious pratter.

Well, mike- I never said that ALL terrorists are courageous. Nor are all military folks cowards (it'd be interesting to speculate about the ratios involved, though).

This is a discussion about two courageous people: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. I'll concede that I threw in the tangent of the 9-11 hijackers. But if we're gonna have any sort of productive discussion here, we should try to avoid unnecessarily expanding this discussion, and stick to the topic(s) at hand.

Focus, people!

Im talking about the system of values at the time and the values these people took with them to positions of power they occupied in the years since, and alot of it being socially engineered in the grade schools on up thru the mass media that the people are exposed to, along with the underlying systems that accompany it that is not exposed to the people. The fall of the whitemans empire. So shall they reap what they sew. The beginning of the change is afoot.

SciFi wrote:

Ratzilla wrote:

If one of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan had stuck and an airman gave his own life to dislodge it . . .

A bit off topic . . . again . . . I keep doing that, but Ratz what was that movie where the guy did just as you wrote? I remember him riding the bomb down while waving his cowboy hat and whooping as if he was riding a bronc.

Yeah that was Slim Pickins in "Dr. Strangelove" or "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" I wasn't thinking of anything quite that dramatic though. Great movie scene.

Thanks, RZ. I owe you and Bighead a proper reply. Not sure I can live up to that, but I'll try.

SciFi wrote:

Thanks, RZ. I owe you and Bighead a proper reply. Not sure I can live up to that, but I'll try.

Maybe I can make your answer easier. Neither myself or Bighead intend to paint terrorism as a brave act. I think we've both clarified that. A booby trap bomber or someone shooting rockets and running for cover in a residential area does not qualify as brave acts. I was simply stating that it takes a degree of bravery even if religious stupidity is involved, to kill yourself for your cause.

I agree, and I think Bighead does too, that bombs and booby traps targetting civilians with no danger to the attacker are acts of cowardice. I'm referring to those who follow their causes with great risk to themself. And whether that's because of stupidity, religious hysteria, a sense of doing right, or national patriotism, one can still be described as having some amount of bravery to put themself in a situation knowing they won't survive.

While I understand Bigheads point about stealth pilots, I can't call bombing cities from stealth bombers acts of cowardice. There is always the risk of malfunction or a lucky shot taking a bomber out. He does however bring up a valid point. Bombing from a distance isn't a whole lot different from a road side bomber taking out a military column. And roadside bombs are definitely not much different from hidden mines used by almost every nations armies at some time.

Yeah, I guess we did the same in the Revolutionary War, at least as much ordinance which was available to us. Still, I don't know if I competely agree with you.

SciFi wrote:

Yeah, I guess we did the same in the Revolutionary War, at least as much ordinance which was available to us. Still, I don't know if I competely agree with you.

Did you know that the US and Turkey were the only two nations in NATO that refused to sign a ban on anti-personel landmines? So far this invasion of Iraq saw no new mines put down by the US, but in 1991 there were nearly 90,000 anti-tank mines and nearly 28,000 anti-personel mines put down by The US in Iraq and Kuwait.

According to reports, the impact of mines, used both by the US and Iraq, have caused far more civilian and livestock casualties than they have military losses. And everyone knew full well that losses due to mines are commonly civilians and often children.

War ain't fair or nice, but we just always notice it faster when the other guy is the one playing dirty.

Ratzilla wrote:

Maybe I can make your answer easier.

Thank you.

SciFi, if you have a differing opinion, feel free to state it. I welcome other points of view and do alter an opinion here and there if someone makes a point I hadn't thought of. If nothing else a wide range of thoughts gives others reading more information to base their opinions on.