Kurt Vonnegut Lauds Suicide Bombers

Status
Not open for further replies.

TIZReporter

Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2005
Messages
128
Incredible, my term for such people as Vonnegut, is 'wackaloon', a person who
has lost it.

TIZ

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17293730^601,00.html

US author lauds suicide bombers
David Nason, New York correspondent
November 19, 2005

ONE of the greatest living US writers has praised terrorists as "very brave people" and used drug culture slang to describe the "amazing high" suicide bombers must feel before blowing themselves up.

Kurt Vonnegut, author of the 1969 anti-war classic Slaughterhouse Five, made the provocative remarks during an interview in New York for his new book, Man Without a Country, a collection of writings critical of US President George W. Bush.

Vonnegut, 83, has been a strong opponent of Mr Bush and the US-led war in Iraq, but until now has stopped short of defending terrorism.

But in discussing his views with The Weekend Australian, Vonnegut said it was "sweet and honourable" to die for what you believe in, and rejected the idea that terrorists were motivated by twisted religious beliefs.

"They are dying for their own self-respect," he said. "It's a terrible thing to deprive someone of their self-respect. It's like your culture is nothing, your race is nothing, you're nothing."

Asked if he thought of terrorists as soldiers, Vonnegut, a decorated World War II veteran, said: "I regard them as very brave people, yes."

He equated the actions of suicide bombers with US president Harry Truman's 1945 decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

On the Iraq war, he said: "What George Bush and his gang did not realise was that people fight back."

Vonnegut suggested suicide bombers must feel an "amazing high". He said: "You would know death is going to be painless, so the anticipation - it must be an amazing high."

Vonnegut's comments are sharply at odds with his reputation as a peace activist and his distinguished war service. He served in the US 106th Division and was captured by German forces at the Battle of the Bulge.

Taken to Dresden and held with other POWs in a disused abattoir, Vonnegut witnessed the appalling events of February 13-14, 1945, when 800 RAF Lancaster bombers firebombed the city, killing an estimated 100,000 civilians.

The experience inspired his book Slaughterhouse Five - the title of the novel coming from the barracks he was assigned in the POW camp. The book became an international bestseller and made Vonnegut a luminary of the US literary left.

But since Mr Bush was elected, Vonnegut's criticisms of US policy have become more and more impassioned.

In 2002, he was widely criticised for saying there was too much talk about the 9/11 attacks and not enough about "the crooks on Wall Street and in big corporations", whose conduct had been more destructive.

The following year he wrote that the US was hated around the world "because our corporations have been the principal deliverers and imposers of new technologies and economic schemes that have wrecked the self-respect, the cultures of men, women and children in so many other societies".

But Vonnegut's latest comments are likely to make many people wonder if old age has finally caught up with a grand old man of American letters.
 
Damn. His early books (through Slaughterhouse-5) are some of my favorites. He must have tripped over a chronosynclastic infundibulum. Or maybe just too many drugs.
 
When you realize

that he was a BIG proponent of LSD, and in fact, wrote many of his books while under the influence, it makes plenty of sense....He turned his brain to mush longago....
 
Has anyone else noticed that the haters of free enterprise, freedom, technological advances etc, are not falling all over themselves to go live in the socialist and/or primitive paradise they prescribe for everyone else?
 
Six out of six for ad hominem attacks so far. Your skills at creating a convincing rebuttal need, ahem, work.
 
Yes coylh, you are exactly correct.

When some American writer says stuff like this:

praised terrorists as "very brave people" and used drug culture slang to describe the "amazing high" suicide bombers must feel before blowing themselves up.

And he says it about jihadists who are waging jihad in the name of Allah, who want to impose sharia on the whole world, and about suicidal maniacs who kill innocent people and who like to make propaganda videos out of infidel decapitations, we need to use logic, and avoid ad hominem attacks and craft finely-made rebuttals to his claims.

Yes, we need to apply the high standards of high school debate club when making up responses to an American who admires terrorists as "very brave people" and who is envious of the "amazing high" that jihadist suicide bombers must feel seconds before they blow up innocent women and children, or right before they explode themselves in a mosque full of Shia Muslims, or when they blow themselves up in order to kill young men who are volunteering to join the new Iraqi army or the Iraqi police force, or are otherwise trying to help their country move forward from tyranny and despotism and into the 21st century........

Yes.....by all means, avoid ad hominem attacks and use only Vulcan-like logic.........

Apparently coyhl needs logic and is confused by ad hominem attacks because he is apparently not entirely convinced himself that suicide bombers aren't "very brave people" or that there isn't something admirable about the "amazing high" that jihadist suicide bombers must feel.

Coyhl is probably not convinced himself that jihadists are even the enemy, and that blowing up women and children or new Iraqi police volunteers or US servicemen and women is necessarily a bad thing....

So please, everyone, make sure that you use only logic, and help make "convincing rebuttals" for coyhl.

:rolleyes:

hillbilly
 
Kurt Vonnegut is described in this article as "ONE of the greatest living US writers".

Is he? Who awarded him that title?

Who is better?

How many Americans would take a few moments go to the webpage of The Australian and send a letter to the newspaper expressing your views.

Remember, newspapers love to publish letters from far away from where they publish, they feel it shows that their readership is worldwide.

The address is in the link to the main article....

TIZ
 
Maybe this bird should try that "amazing high" himself. If he wants to, I have a list of great targets for him to practice on until he gets it right.

rr
 
Ide actually agree with this guy if

A) The suicide bombers werent committing suicide
and
B) They werent completetely misled by their leaders

Suicide is not a brave thing to do. The brave thing to do is to fight until you are killed- not to kill yourself.

Fight for something with all you heart and i will respect you, even if i hate and disagree with you.
 
The man is in his eighties and sufferning from DEMentia, like the rest of his party....
 
If a suicide bomber's sacrifice isn't brave does that mean Kamikaze pilots were cowards? Aren't both acts really signs of committed (though desperate) action by people who don't have a more effective way to fight their enemies?

If your argument is that the targets are different (military vs. civilian/military) I would counter that those who live in glass houses (or those who drop bombs and invade sovereign nations) shouldn't throw stones.

Wacky or not...Vonnegut's point has some validity. If you are able to place yourselves in the shoes of your enemy aren't his comments sensible? We give credit to our selfless war heroes....why shouldn't the enemy do and feel the same way?
 
Decades ago, when Vonnegut was at his peak, I was a huge fan of his.

I was also usually stoned.

There's still a few of his books somewhere around the house. Maybe they'll sell at my wife's rummage sale next spring.
 
Take out the "V" and Vonnegut's gone nuts

But really he's always been a scumbag left winger. I find it highly ironic that this is the same idiot who criticized the firebombing of Dresden--a central industrial city in the Axis war effort.
 
lysander said:
If a suicide bomber's sacrifice isn't brave does that mean Kamikaze pilots were cowards? Aren't both acts really signs of committed (though desperate) action by people who don't have a more effective way to fight their enemies?

The few surviving Kamikazes get VERY angry when idiot scumbag liberals try to compare the homicide bombers to them. They were attacking military tagets--the American invasion fleet specifically. The homicide bombers will detonate wherever it kills as many people as possible. They target unarmed, defenseless civilians primarily. They are vile animals. It takes guts to fly a plane through a barrage of cannon fire and antiaircraft flak in hopes of stopping a fleet coming to take over your country. It does not take guts to blow up a fricking WEDDING PARTY because you think it will get you to heaven faster.

The Kamikaze pilots were also fighting IN UNIFORM in MARKED PLANES, operating under orders from a structured government and military. By definition their actions were not illegal. You can say they were misguided, but as far as they knew at the time the Americans were coming to rape and kill their families.
 
Cosmoline said:
The few surviving Kamikazes get VERY angry when idiot scumbag liberals try to compare the homicide bombers to them. They were attacking military tagets--the American invasion fleet specifically. The homicide bombers will detonate wherever it kills as many people as possible. They target unarmed, defenseless civilians primarily. They are vile animals. It takes guts to fly a plane through a barrage of cannon fire and antiaircraft flak in hopes of stopping a fleet coming to take over your country. It does not take guts to blow up a fricking WEDDING PARTY because you think it will get you to heaven faster.

The Kamikaze pilots were also fighting IN UNIFORM in MARKED PLANES, operating under orders from a structured government and military. By definition their actions were not illegal. You can say they were misguided, but as far as they knew at the time the Americans were coming to rape and kill their families.


Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner!!!!
 
You fight how you are best able and you use tactics that work. Welcome to 4th generation warfare...where your enemies are stateless and plain-clothed. Given the firepower and technology they face...putting on a uniform and attacking a military target means certain death without any accrued benefit. So unconventional (and depending on your perspective, despicable) tactics will rule the day for the insurgents. As far as the suicide bombers are concerned, everyone in opposition is an enemy, and thus a legitimate target.

Getting to heaven faster is the justification...the trick used by the string-pullers to convince young angry Arabs to strap on explosives and wage war on the enemy.

Heaven......Divine Wind? Seems the justification was the same, death as an homage to the Emperor or death as an homage to Allah. Either way you end up dead.

Momentarily remove your American cap and slip on your Arabic head-dress (just for a second...it won't make you blow up a Wedding party) and identify with the enemy. Are you suddenly a rabid, drooling animal? Atrocity is commited by all sides in war...and viewing your enemy as a savage is the mental defense used to help you come to terms with it.

"And as water has no constant form, there are in war no constant conditions." Sun Tzu
 
Cosmoline said:
Dresden--a central industrial city in the Axis war effort.

Nope. Dresden had no industrial value, but a great cultural one. Destroying Dresden was Harris's revenge and a political statement / psychological attack on all Germans. That is why he is widely criticized on it, although more damage was actually caused to Berlin and Hamburg.

Saying that the bombers are just some wild animals or cowards seeking paradise is a gross simplification of their psychological makeup and subculture IMO. If we do not wish to understand the enemy, we deny ourselves many advantages in the struggle against them.
 
As far as the suicide bombers are concerned, everyone in opposition is an enemy, and thus a legitimate target.

Exactly. They are totalitarian fascists fighting to establish a totalitarian, Mussolini-Hitler style regime. Hence, they respect no human rights and kill all the people they don't like in the name of something like racial purity.

If they used uniforms to kill old ladies, they'd be dirtbags just like the Nazis who guarded the camps in uniform. No amount of officialization, change in tactics, or talk will change the fact that these people are killing old ladies and little kids.

If you intentionally target bus stops and wedding parties, you are a scumbag, whether you are willing to kill yourself too, whether you're fighting for "Justice" or whatever other idea, or not.

Fighting to establish a fascist dictatorship is bad enough...blowing yourself up in order to target a bunch of civilians doesn't make your fascist agenda more admirable by any sane measure.
 
Momentarily remove your American cap and slip on your Arabic head-dress (just for a second...it won't make you blow up a Wedding party) and identify with the enemy. Are you suddenly a rabid, drooling animal? Atrocity is commited by all sides in war...and viewing your enemy as a savage is the mental defense used to help you come to terms with it.

Yes, they are rabid drooling animals. The people that are commiting these suicide bombings have no moral equivalent to anything else. That's the thing about morals. You have to have a moral grounding point - regardless of what happened in the past. I believe that a good portion of the earth's past enhabitants can be morally equated to rabid dogs. It's cultural evolution. The superior moral system outlives the inferior.

Does this mean we cannot try and understand these people? No. Does this mean they are not that different from us? No. They are humans. They were unfortunate enough to be born and brought up in an inferior moral system. Some of them were not, and chose an inferior moral system. Neither of these unfortunate happenings detract from the fact that I will not let them continue fighting people who are not actively involved in this war. They deserved to be killed, and do not deserve our sympathy. Save that for the innocents they kill. We should learn from them to prevent their ranks from growing and to further our moral evolution, but that is all.

We are better then the suicide bombers. We are morally superior. It is OK to acknowledge this fact.
 
I believe it really is some senile dementia. He has always been left leaning in his politics. But two recent interviews I saw of Mr. Vonnegut left him appearing to be an old man whose mind doesn't quite work well anymore.

His topics may follow what has been his politics in the past, but the specifics and how he responds are not normal for him even 10 years ago. A case of someone who really is embarrassing themselves without realizing it. Someone who cares about him should advise him to enjoy his old age. And stay out of the public eye.
 
lysander said:
You fight how you are best able and you use tactics that work. Welcome to 4th generation warfare...where your enemies are stateless and plain-clothed. Given the firepower and technology they face...putting on a uniform and attacking a military target means certain death without any accrued benefit. So unconventional (and depending on your perspective, despicable) tactics will rule the day for the insurgents. As far as the suicide bombers are concerned, everyone in opposition is an enemy, and thus a legitimate target.

Getting to heaven faster is the justification...the trick used by the string-pullers to convince young angry Arabs to strap on explosives and wage war on the enemy.

Heaven......Divine Wind? Seems the justification was the same, death as an homage to the Emperor or death as an homage to Allah. Either way you end up dead.

Momentarily remove your American cap and slip on your Arabic head-dress (just for a second...it won't make you blow up a Wedding party) and identify with the enemy. Are you suddenly a rabid, drooling animal? Atrocity is commited by all sides in war...and viewing your enemy as a savage is the mental defense used to help you come to terms with it.

"And as water has no constant form, there are in war no constant conditions." Sun Tzu

I'm waiting to hear how a wedding party full of Jordanians (NOT Americans) or a funeral again full of Arabs but no Americans can be seen as part of the enemy force.

If some Arab militia wants to strap on the explosives and march against US military positions in uniform under a banner, I wish them luck. When the Japanese Kamikaze came they displayed the rising sun with PRIDE and made no effort to disguise themselves. Mind you they COULD HAVE. They could have made their planes look like American planes and flown in wearing American uniforms. But they instead chose the way of honor, because for them honor was all. These homicide bombers have no honor. Most of the time they don't even bother to attack US troops for fear that they might get blown away or captured. They're happy just to slaughter as many people as possible. Indeed they AVOID challenging anyone who might be able to fight back and they certainly avoid displaying a uniform or flag.

Their goal is to cause so much death that the leftists here at home will start wanting to give up, and that's exactly what's happening. If you will notice, as the leftists have increased their calls for the US to pull out, homicide attacks have jumped up in intensity. They used the same tactics to get the Euros to run away. The only way to face them is to ignore the carnage and hunt them down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top