Author Topic: Fire in the Night  (Read 2037 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Religious Dick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1153
  • Drunk, drunk, drunk in the gardens and the graves
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Fire in the Night
« on: August 28, 2008, 04:21:46 PM »
City Journal Home.
John M. Murtagh
Fire in the Night
The Weathermen tried to kill my family.
30 April 2008

During the April 16 debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, moderator George Stephanopoulos brought up ?a gentleman named William Ayers,? who ?was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, and other buildings. He?s never apologized for that.? Stephanopoulos then asked Obama to explain his relationship with Ayers. Obama?s answer: ?The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn?t make much sense, George.? Obama was indeed only eight in early 1970. I was only nine then, the year Ayers?s Weathermen tried to murder me.

In February 1970, my father, a New York State Supreme Court justice, was presiding over the trial of the so-called ?Panther 21,? members of the Black Panther Party indicted in a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores. Early on the morning of February 21, as my family slept, three gasoline-filled firebombs exploded at our home on the northern tip of Manhattan, two at the front door and the third tucked neatly under the gas tank of the family car. (Today, of course, we?d call that a car bomb.) A neighbor heard the first two blasts and, with the remains of a snowman I had built a few days earlier, managed to douse the flames beneath the car. That was an act whose courage I fully appreciated only as an adult, an act that doubtless saved multiple lives that night.

I still recall, as though it were a dream, thinking that someone was lifting and dropping my bed as the explosions jolted me awake, and I remember my mother?s pulling me from the tangle of sheets and running to the kitchen where my father stood. Through the large windows overlooking the yard, all we could see was the bright glow of flames below. We didn?t leave our burning house for fear of who might be waiting outside. The same night, bombs were thrown at a police car in Manhattan and two military recruiting stations in Brooklyn. Sunlight, the next morning, revealed three sentences of blood-red graffiti on our sidewalk: FREE THE PANTHER 21; THE VIET CONG HAVE WON; KILL THE PIGS.

For the next 18 months, I went to school in an unmarked police car. My mother, a schoolteacher, had plainclothes detectives waiting in the faculty lounge all day. My brother saved a few bucks because he didn?t have to rent a limo for the senior prom: the NYPD did the driving. We all made the best of the odd new life that had been thrust upon us, but for years, the sound of a fire truck?s siren made my stomach knot and my heart race. In many ways, the enormity of the attempt to kill my entire family didn?t fully hit me until years later, when, a father myself, I was tucking my own nine-year-old John Murtagh into bed.

Though no one was ever caught or tried for the attempt on my family?s life, there was never any doubt who was behind it. Only a few weeks after the attack, the New York contingent of the Weathermen blew themselves up making more bombs in a Greenwich Village townhouse. The same cell had bombed my house, writes Ron Jacobs in The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground. And in late November that year, a letter to the Associated Press signed by Bernardine Dohrn, Ayers?s wife, promised more bombings.

As the association between Obama and Ayers came to light, it would have helped the senator a little if his friend had at least shown some remorse. But listen to Ayers interviewed in the New York Times on September 11, 2001, of all days: ?I don?t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn?t do enough.? Translation: ?We meant to kill that judge and his family, not just damage the porch.? When asked by the Times if he would do it all again, Ayers responded: ?I don?t want to discount the possibility.?

Though never a supporter of Obama, I admired him for a time for his ability to engage our imaginations, and especially for his ability to inspire the young once again to embrace the political system. Yet his myopia in the last few months has cast a new light on his ?politics of change.? Nobody should hold the junior senator from Illinois responsible for his friends? and supporters? violent terrorist acts. But it is fair to hold him responsible for a startling lack of judgment in his choice of mentors, associates, and friends, and for showing a callous disregard for the lives they damaged and the hatred they have demonstrated for this country. It is fair, too, to ask what those choices say about Obama?s own beliefs, his philosophy, and the direction he would take our nation.

At the conclusion of his 2001 Times interview, Ayers said of his upbringing and subsequent radicalization: ?I was a child of privilege and I woke up to a world on fire.?

Funny thing, Bill: one night, so did I.

John M. Murtagh is a practicing attorney, an adjunct professor of public policy at the Fordham University College of Liberal Studies, and a member of the city council in Yonkers, New York, where he resides with his wife and two sons.

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0430jm.html
I speak of civil, social man under law, and no other.
-Sir Edmund Burke

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Fire in the Night
« Reply #1 on: August 28, 2008, 04:33:10 PM »
<<In February 1970, my father, a New York State Supreme Court justice, was presiding over the trial of the so-called ?Panther 21,? members of the Black Panther Party indicted in a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores.>>

That is absolutely amazing.  I sat in on that trial as a guest at the press table for two days in what I think was the spring of that year, when they were still picking a jury.  This was kind of dull stuff, but I was amazed at how many questions counsel could ask potential jurors, and since there were all kinds of counsel taking their shot at the jurors, I got to see the whole range from the best to the worst of them.  There were also some very humorous moments, at least one when the whole courtroom dissolved in laughter.   

I liked the judge, thought he was very down to earth and very fair, also resourceful in dealing with any legal conundrums that popped up along the way.  One of the defendants was a kind of attractive French-Canadian woman, sort of a low-rent Bernadette Dohrn.  Wonder what ever happened to her, I can't even remember her name now.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Fire in the Night
« Reply #2 on: August 28, 2008, 05:15:57 PM »
<<At the conclusion of his 2001 Times interview, Ayers said of his upbringing and subsequent radicalization: ?I was a child of privilege and I woke up to a world on fire.

<<Funny thing, Bill: one night, so did I.>>

Funnier yet, so did two million Vietnamese.  Just long enough to burn alive in the napalm.  But we know already how Americans like to whine.  When I think of the carnage they unleashed upon Vietnam, I never would have thought they would have the balls to complain about one lousy car bomb, but really, when all's said and done, they have absolutely no fucking shame.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Fire in the Night
« Reply #3 on: August 28, 2008, 05:27:11 PM »


Quote
Funnier yet, so did two million Vietnamese.  Just long enough to burn alive in the napalm.  But we know already how Americans like to whine.  When I think of the carnage they unleashed upon Vietnam, I never would have thought they would have the balls to complain about one lousy car bomb, but really, when all's said and done, they have absolutely no fucking shame.

So blowing up a synagogue or mosque is no big deal, relatively speaking?

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Fire in the Night
« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2008, 05:31:52 PM »
<<So blowing up a synagogue or mosque is no big deal, relatively speaking?>>

Depends what you consider a big deal.  Guys like you think a family burning alive in napalm is no big deal.  Two million Vietnamese killed in the American invasion is no big deal.  The war in Iraq is no big deal.  General Pinochet and his American-backed torture state was no big deal.

Yeah, it IS a big deal, but there are much bigger deals that you never spoke a word against, so IMHO you don't have the right to bitch about it at all.  I mean of course you can bitch about it, but only at the risk of being labeled one big fucking hypocrite.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Fire in the Night
« Reply #5 on: August 28, 2008, 05:38:44 PM »
<<So blowing up a synagogue or mosque is no big deal, relatively speaking?>>

Depends what you consider a big deal.  Guys like you think a family burning alive in napalm is no big deal.  Two million Vietnamese killed in the American invasion is no big deal.  The war in Iraq is no big deal.  General Pinochet and his American-backed torture state was no big deal.

Yeah, it IS a big deal, but there are much bigger deals that you never spoke a word against, so IMHO you don't have the right to bitch about it at all.  I mean of course you can bitch about it, but only at the risk of being labeled one big fucking hypocrite.


So it is fair as long as everyone gets a turn?

Great , whoever has the most bombs wins then.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Fire in the Night
« Reply #6 on: August 28, 2008, 06:44:19 PM »
<<Great , whoever has the most bombs wins then.>>

Wonder how you'll feel when the Chinese catch up with you in bombs.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Fire in the Night
« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2008, 10:28:12 PM »
So if i get this right a car bomb is ok as long as it is used by a cause you believe in and the body count is less than a cause you don't believe in. but even though the Vietnamese  body count was less than Uncle Joe's purges you approved of Uncle Joe's Purges so the Vietnamese action relatively speaking is worse. And you have the balls to call me a hypocrite?




Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Fire in the Night
« Reply #8 on: August 28, 2008, 10:35:54 PM »
<<Great , whoever has the most bombs wins then.>>

Wonder how you'll feel when the Chinese catch up with you in bombs.

So you think it is a bad idea for us to allow them to continue liveing?

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Fire in the Night
« Reply #9 on: August 28, 2008, 11:08:25 PM »
<<So if i get this right a car bomb is ok . . . >>

Well, there's a problem, as always, due to your sloppy use of language.  What is "OK?"  A car bomb isn't really OK, in the sense that a lot of people can get majorly fucked up in it, and that's usually not good for anyone.   But if the car bomb went off in the midst of a bunch of Nazis?  What could be bad about it?

The car bomb is good or bad depending on who it hurts.  What if it goes off on a crowded street in Tel Aviv?  Can't be good on the surface of things.  The car bomb is good or bad depending on who sets it off.  What if it was set by a father who just buried the tortured and broken body of his 22-year-old son after he got it back from the Israeli police?  Suddenly the car bomb isn't as bad as it was a minute ago.  What if it was set by a gang of neo-Nazis?  Back to bad again, the worst kind of bad.

I'm not a pacifist.  I believe there are times when one must fight.  WWII being the classic example.  There was no other way.  But I'm not a believer in war as the first resort or in pre-emptive war except on incontrovertible evidence of imminent attack.  Once you accept the first step - - that war in some circumstaces can be justified - - then the rest is just tactics and basic ground rules.  Who's fair game and who's not.  And frankly I don't see a big difference between killing ten people in an airstrike or killing ten people with a car bomb.  It's just a reflection of what weapons and what tactics are available to either side.  I do see a difference where one side uses torture and runs up kill rates of hundreds of thousands of victims - - then I am prepared to feel OK with the use of harsher tactics by the victims, assuming of course that the victims were not the initial aggressors.  If the victims (the Nazis or the Japs, for example) were the original aggressors, then I'm not concerned what happens to them, even if the ultimate casualty ratios are a hundred to one against them.  It's just payback time.


<< . . . as long as it is used by a cause you believe in and the body count is less than a cause you don't believe in. but even though the Vietnamese  body count was less than Uncle Joe's purges you approved of Uncle Joe's Purges so the Vietnamese action relatively speaking is worse. >>

Well, yeah - - the motive for the purges was to safeguard the Revolution against internal enemies and foreign saboteurs.  And the motive for the invasion of Viet Nam was the pure urge to dominate.  I don't believe the purges caused anywhere near the numbers that are being attributed to them.

<<And you have the balls to call me a hypocrite?>>

What's your problem?  You ARE a hypocrite.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Fire in the Night
« Reply #10 on: August 28, 2008, 11:17:28 PM »
So you think Russia is in the wrong for invading Georgia?


Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Fire in the Night
« Reply #11 on: August 28, 2008, 11:47:27 PM »
Well, yeah - - the motive for the purges was to safeguard the Revolution against internal enemies and foreign saboteurs. 

And the People , the Revolution must not fail just because the people are suffering from it.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Fire in the Night
« Reply #12 on: August 29, 2008, 01:33:51 AM »
<<So you think Russia is in the wrong for invading Georgia?>>

Of course not, the U.S. is wrong for sponsoring the Georgian army and then letting them invade South Ossetia with U.S. advisors in tow.  South Ossetia was an autonomous province and Russia had pursuant to agreement stationed peace-keepers there, whose lives, along with the lives of the Russians of South Ossetia, were put at risk by the Georgian army invasion.  Georgia was wrong to invade South Ossetia.  The Russian army is only performing defensive duties and preventing bloodshed.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Fire in the Night
« Reply #13 on: August 29, 2008, 01:40:01 AM »
Quote
The Russian army is only performing defensive duties and preventing bloodshed.

Did Georgia invade Russian Territory?


Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Fire in the Night
« Reply #14 on: August 29, 2008, 05:32:06 AM »
<<So you think Russia is in the wrong for invading Georgia?>>

Of course not, the U.S. is wrong for sponsoring the Georgian army and then letting them invade South Ossetia with U.S. advisors in tow.  South Ossetia was an autonomous province and Russia had pursuant to agreement stationed peace-keepers there, whose lives, along with the lives of the Russians of South Ossetia, were put at risk by the Georgian army invasion.  Georgia was wrong to invade South Ossetia.  The Russian army is only performing defensive duties and preventing bloodshed.

Is that what they are claiming?


Wow , they were invadeing defensively and only for the sake of peacekeeping were thjey captureing territory all the way to the coast.