First there was Bill Ayers and his Weather Underground domestic terrorism. Then there was Kent State, then there was the rise of Islamic terrorism, then there was the Boston Bombers. (an abbreviated list to be sure) But now we have Bill Ayers doing Iran, some form of terrorist diplomacy known only to Iran and Ayers.
But what he said was not in code. It was very clear. Brietbart
“…he proclaimed that the United States is a “terrorist nation” that is the “greatest purveyor of violence on earth… and the foremost threat to world peace.”
I mention it because he used similar rhetoric in 2013 at the Kent State anniversary. The Daily Caller reported:
Ayers reportedly said that the United States is the most violent country that has ever been created.
Ohio.com: Ayers said the task is “….to be astonished at both the beauty of the world and the unnecessary suffering we visit on the world. And then to act.”
At Kent State, he somehow managed to deny the moral equivalence of what he and his group did with jihad terrorists like Boston Bombers. Again, reasoning known only in his mind that he’s a righteous hero, while they aren’t? He’s an “activist” but Jihadists are just… terrorists.
In an interview with Megyn Kelly, he said he cannot say he would not rise up again in a “very militant and serious way” against the US. So there you have it. But we should not confuse what he and his cohorts did with standard terrorism. I’m sure his cushy pension via academia allows him the freedom to make such proper distinctions.
The Blaze: Kelly later pressed Ayers on one of the more controversial statements he’s made since becoming an academic. He is quoted as saying, “I can’t quite imagine putting a bomb in a building today— all of that seems so distinctly part of then. But I can’t quite imagine entirely dismissing the possibility, either.”
Ayers confirmed that he can’t say for sure that he would never again rise up against the “violent” United States in a “very militant and serious way.” However, he said at 70 years old such a prospect is unlikely. Still, he made it clear he, like his wife, is not “committed” to an ideology of “nonviolence.”
Apparently, at 70, Ayers is not up to the physical demands of terrorism. I bet he and the Iranians would have much to discus about human rights, civil rights agendas et al.
The central deciding factor in Ayers’ mind appears to be the ‘motive’ — his vs theirs. If so, then I bet Islamic terrorists would disagree that their 1400 year-old religious grievances are not quite up to those righteous standards.
RightRing | Bullright