William Ayers- American Terrorist

[neilinov]

Fawkes is notorious for his involvement in the Gunpowder Plot of 1605. He was probably placed in charge of executing the plot because of his military and explosives experience. The plot, masterminded by Robert Catesby, was an attempt by a group of religious conspirators to kill King James I of England, his family, and most of the aristocracy by blowing up the House of Lords in the Palace of Westminster during the State Opening of Parliament. Fawkes may have been introduced to Catesby by Hugh Owen, a man who was in the pay of the Spanish Netherlands. Sir William Stanley is also believed to have recommended him, and Fawkes named him under torture, leading to his arrest and imprisonment for a day after the discovery of the plot. It was Stanley who first presented Fawkes to Thomas Winter in 1603 when Winter was in Continental Europe. Stanley was the commander of the English in Flanders at the time. Stanley had handed Deventer and much of its garrison back to the Spanish in 1587, nearly wiping out the gains that the Earl of Leicester had made in the Low Countries. Leicester’s expedition was widely regarded as a disaster, for this reason among others.
The best primary source[citation needed] for the details of the plot itself is the account known as the King's Book or James I The Kings Book - A True and Perfect Relation of the Whole Proceedings Against the Late Most Barbarous Traitors. Robt. Barker, Printer to the Kings Most Excellent Majesty, British Museum 1606. Although this is a government account, and details have been disputed, it is generally considered to be an accurate record of the history of the plot, and the imprisonment, torture and execution of the plotters.


A contemporary engraving of the conspirators (detail). The Dutch artist, Crispijn van de Passe the Elder, probably never met any of the conspirators, but the print has become well-known nonetheless.


The plot itself may have been occasioned by the realisation by Protestant authorities and Catholic recusants that the Kingdom of Spain was in far too much debt and fighting too many wars to assist Catholics in Britain. Any possibility of toleration by Great Britain was removed at the Hampton Court conference in 1604 when King James I attacked both extreme Puritans and Catholics. The plotters realised that no outside help would be forthcoming unless they took action themselves. Fawkes and the other conspirators rented a cellar beneath the House of Lords having first tried to dig a tunnel under the building. This would have proved difficult, because they would have had to dispose of the dirt and debris. (No evidence of this tunnel has ever been found). By March 1605, they had hidden 1800 pounds (36 barrels, or 800 kg) of gunpowder in the cellar. The plotters also intended to abduct Princess Elizabeth (later Elizabeth of Bohemia, the "Winter Queen"). A few of the conspirators were concerned, however, about fellow Catholics who would have been present at Parliament during the opening. One of the conspirators wrote a warning letter to Lord Monteagle, who received it on 26 October. The conspirators became aware of the letter the following day, but they resolved to continue the plot after Fawkes had confirmed that nothing had been touched in the cellar.
Lord Monteagle had been made suspicious, however; the letter was sent to the Secretary of State, who initiated a search of the vaults beneath the House of Lords in the early morning of 5 November. However, nothing was moved, in order not to alert the conspirators that the plot had been uncovered. Fawkes, who was resolved to blow himself up along with Parliament if need be, was seized as he attempted to ignite the powder charge. Peter Heywood, a resident of Heywood, Lancashire, snatched the torch from his hand at the last instant. Fawkes was arrested and taken before the privy council where he remained defiant. When asked by one of the Scottish lords what he had intended to do with so much gunpowder, Fawkes answered him, "To blow you Scotch beggars back to your own native mountains!"
When they asked for his name Fawkes replied "John Johnson". He was tortured over the next few days. King James directed that the torture be light at first, but more severe if necessary. Sir William Waad, Lieutenant of the Tower of London at this time, supervised the torture and obtained Fawkes's confession. For three or four days Fawkes said nothing, nor divulged the names of his co-conspirators. Only when he found out that they had proclaimed themselves by appearing in arms did he succumb. The torture only revealed the names of those conspirators who were already dead or whose names were known to the authorities. Some had fled to Dunchurch, Warwickshire, where they were killed or captured. On 31 January, Fawkes and a number of others implicated in the conspiracy were tried in Westminster Hall. After being found guilty, they were taken to Old Palace Yard in Westminster and St Paul's Yard, where they were hanged, drawn and quartered.

[Redfish44]

You good ole boys just can't stand it that an AA is the next president elect! LOL Pitiful. Get used to it because it is here. What if low and behold things get better?

[Reel Fanatic]

Redfish44-

This thread is about a caucasian named William Ayers, a known terrorist who gets a complete pass on his horrific attacks on his own country, not Mr. Obama. I'm sure there are some who are upset that our President elect has a permanent tan but most here could care less about the color of his skin. The sad thing about everyone who supported the candidacy of our President elect is that they label anyone who disagrees with his platform as a "RACIST". "How can you possibly disagree with HIM unless you are a bigot or racist?"

That is a cheap way of avoiding a substantive discussion of how Mr. Obama's policies will or will not bring about positive change/ improvement in our economic situation, health care, taxes, social or moral issues, or protection against terrorism. Making a statement like "Anyone is better than Bush" or "It was time for us to have a black President" don't cut it. This wasn't an election for homecoming king or class representative. This is for the most powerful position in the free world. If Mr. Obama can pull it off and make the world a safer and better place, save the economy, and solve some of our major issues without sinking the ship then he can expect to stay in the White house for 8 years. If not, then he will be heading back to Chicago in 4. I didn't support his campaign but he is my President and I want him to be successful at protecting this nation and preserving our liberties, economy, and overall way of life. If he can't do it, then I want him heading home on Marine One in January of 2012 Godspeed.

Somehow, this thread got derailed in discussing terrorism under a "relative" perspective with the introduction of 300 year old case studies that bare no similarity to current events. Also, the suggestion of our repeated efforts to provide stability through military intervention and/ or military support in Central America and the Carribean during the period referred to as The Banana Wars is also irrelevant. Our country is where it is and when a destabilized region that is at risk of being used as a tool against us by one of our enemies makes it a case of national interest. Some fears may have been overstated or just appeared to be more severe than they turned out to be. Others were underestimated and allowed the fall of the Cuban government to a band of communist terrorists who could not otherwise win in the arena of public ideas.

As a super power, our nation will be blamed for any action or inaction it takes. A President must weight the gravity of a political situation against whatever actions or inactions taken and their long term ramifications. I can completely understand certain countries only seeing the bad in the US when they are our enemies and have conflicting interests. I just have a hard time fathoming how a US citizen can hold that same perspective.

I also have a hard time understanding how someone can go back and forth on what is acceptable action strictly because of the party of the person occupying the White House. Whenever Clinton retalliated against Saddam Hussein, both parties vigorously supported and applauded his efforts without any thought to any future elections. When Clinton sent troops into Bosnia, both parties supported the effort because it was the right thing to do. When GW went after Hussein as well as OBL, the Democrats gave him a battle both times posturing themselves for any upcoming elections. If we did nothing other than attack Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity or ethnic cleansing, that would have been no different than our intervention in Bosnia. But this political relativism is nothing short of pathetic. Right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of who is in the White House.

Now can we get this thread back to it's original topic- William Ayers-American terrorist?

[jbrob]

empathizing with Bill Ayers. He is probably more dangerous today as an educator than when he was building bombs. Sometimes you just have to decide whose side you're on.

I don't empathize for Ayers in his role as a violent protester during the Viet Nam era. And I am certainly on America's side, but I believe in a vision of America whereby we concentrate on our own problems and leave others in the world to go their own way even if it does not conform to our values and systems.

WE have gotten into the mess we are in overseas by our prodigious appetite for oil. If it were not for oil we would never have stationed troops in the Mid-east. Without our being there I doubt seriously that 9/11 would have occurred or that Osama Bin Laden would have developed a following intent on both destroying the governments in the Mid east nor hitting us for supporting many of them.

The Bill Ayers deal is a bogieman for lots of things. It is cover to restore an America that never existed except in our minds.

[Reel Fanatic]

If you have a car, you have an appetite for oil.

If you heat your home with heating oil or natural gas, you have an appetite for oil.

If you have plastic containers in your home, you have an appetite for oil.

If you have a computer, you have an appetite for oil.

If your kid(s) has any toys, you have an appetite for oil.

If you paint your home, you have an appetite for oil.

Are we the only civilized country on the face of the planet that is supposed to live as our ancestors from the stoneage lived in order to be completely "oil free" or "oil independent"? It's not going to happen.

Our economic policies with the middle east have been instruments of diplomacy for national security interests as well as consumer interests. Since our own lefties have made it so we can't drill for our own oil in areas that have the greatest likelihood of yielding results, we have to buy it elsewhere. The current oil leases that the government has granted don't hold much promise for producing reserves that could generate a profit so therefore, the oil companies haven't waisted their time and money on risky ventures.

Then where does the majority of our oil come from? Canada and Mexico and a combined host of smaller countries for the most part. See the attached list: (FYI-the countries in red HATE us and could easily be replaced by increasing our own production if allowed to do so in oil rich regions. The countries in green kind of like us and they really like our money.)

Total Imports of Petroleum (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Aug-08 Jul-08 YTD 2008 Aug-07 YTD 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
CANADA 2,199 2,390 2,427 2,527 2,467
SAUDI ARABIA 1,573 1,675 1,560 1,499 1,443
MEXICO 1,400 1,290 1,315 1,474 1,578
VENEZUELA 1,305 1,340 1,210 1,320 1,357
NIGERIA 1,166 822 1,067 1,224 1,076
IRAQ 663 696 675 520 479
ALGERIA 530 456 525 827 736
ANGOLA 495 652 523 412 536
RUSSIA 490 556 487 416 419
VIRGIN ISLANDS 298 294 326 320 326
ECUADOR 298 227 216 240 201
COLOMBIA 257 191 210 181 144
UNITED KINGDOM 222 187 218 174 300
BRAZIL 208 272 244 280 214
KUWAIT 203 122 207 139 192

Ayers isn't some poor whipping boy that was used as a distraction. He is symptomatic of a potential greater threat to our country. That is, our President associates and surrounds himself with a crowd of people who have as much love and/ or respect for this country (and the founding fathers vision) as your average terrorist who would prefer to see this country fall. Now that he is President, he has the ability to wreake havoc for 20-30 years through his policies and judicial appointments. If this is the kind of person that he associates with because of commonality of vision and politics, why is it such a stretch for him to want to appoint people of similar mindset into our court system where they are permanent and don't answer to the people?

[MV_Mojo]

Here's a question...

If we were go by Ayers ethos...wouldn't someone that found Ayers a threat be justified in killing him?

Just curious.

Mojo

[bigeasy]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/...in/index1.html


Paglia is perhaps my favorite Liberal Intellectual. She has interesting thoughts on Ayers and on Palin.

[bigeasy]

If you have a car, you have an appetite for oil.

If you heat your home with heating oil or natural gas, you have an appetite for oil.

If you have plastic containers in your home, you have an appetite for oil.

If you have a computer, you have an appetite for oil.

If your kid(s) has any toys, you have an appetite for oil.

If you paint your home, you have an appetite for oil.

Are we the only civilized country on the face of the planet that is supposed to live as our ancestors from the stoneage lived in order to be completely "oil free" or "oil independent"? It's not going to happen.

Our economic policies with the middle east have been instruments of diplomacy for national security interests as well as consumer interests. Since our own lefties have made it so we can't drill for our own oil in areas that have the greatest likelihood of yielding results, we have to buy it elsewhere. The current oil leases that the government has granted don't hold much promise for producing reserves that could generate a profit so therefore, the oil companies haven't waisted their time and money on risky ventures.

Then where does the majority of our oil come from? Canada and Mexico and a combined host of smaller countries for the most part. See the attached list: (FYI-the countries in red HATE us and could easily be replaced by increasing our own production if allowed to do so in oil rich regions. The countries in green kind of like us and they really like our money.)

Total Imports of Petroleum (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Aug-08 Jul-08 YTD 2008 Aug-07 YTD 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
CANADA 2,199 2,390 2,427 2,527 2,467
SAUDI ARABIA 1,573 1,675 1,560 1,499 1,443
MEXICO 1,400 1,290 1,315 1,474 1,578
VENEZUELA 1,305 1,340 1,210 1,320 1,357
NIGERIA 1,166 822 1,067 1,224 1,076
IRAQ 663 696 675 520 479
ALGERIA 530 456 525 827 736
ANGOLA 495 652 523 412 536
RUSSIA 490 556 487 416 419
VIRGIN ISLANDS 298 294 326 320 326
ECUADOR 298 227 216 240 201
COLOMBIA 257 191 210 181 144
UNITED KINGDOM 222 187 218 174 300
BRAZIL 208 272 244 280 214
KUWAIT 203 122 207 139 192

Ayers isn't some poor whipping boy that was used as a distraction. He is symptomatic of a potential greater threat to our country. That is, our President associates and surrounds himself with a crowd of people who have as much love and/ or respect for this country (and the founding fathers vision) as your average terrorist who would prefer to see this country fall. Now that he is President, he has the ability to wreake havoc for 20-30 years through his policies and judicial appointments. If this is the kind of person that he associates with because of commonality of vision and politics, why is it such a stretch for him to want to appoint people of similar mindset into our court system where they are permanent and don't answer to the people?

I guess a lure maker who can fool a fish into biting the hook can have other qualities as well. A gift of language and a deep understanding of the issues. Well said.