Kurt Vonnegut Lauds Suicide Bombers

[antsi]

shootinstudent,
I am not defending the actions of a suicide bomber...I'm just trying to give their actions some perspective based upon their circumstances.

No, that's not what you're doing. You're trying to say that the actions of terrorists (like the people who blew up the wedding in Jordan) are morally equivalent to the actions of US Military personnel (who have at times killed noncombatants accidentally when trying to target combatants). They are not equivalent, and it's not the same thing, and it doesn't matter what someone's "perspective" is.

Isn't it more appropriate to say that anyone who beds down with the enemy is a target? Jordan is a moderate and generally pro-west monarchy, they have sent troops to support western goals in Afghanistan. As far as the bombers are concerned...they have aided and abetted the enemy...thus fair game.

No, it's not more appropriate. It's more nonsensical, and it's more wilfully obtuse, but it's not more appropriate.

US forces target combatants. When they hurt or kill noncombatants, that's collateral damage. US forces try to minimize that.

The terrorists target noncombatants. They try to maximize that. It's not collateral damage, it's what they meant to do.

If I shoot an armed assailant, I am justified. This is equivalent to what US forces do.

If I am trying to shoot an armed assailant and accidentally hit the little old lady across the street, that is very unfortunate and it is certainly not to my credit, but it's not the same thing morally as deliberately setting out to murder the little old lady across the street. Sometimes, unfortunately, and very much to their chagrin, and despite their efforts to the contrary, sometimes US forces do things equivalent to this.

If I shoot the armed assailant's ex-wife, his children, and his great-aunt, I am not justified. This is what the terrorists do.

If I shoot a bunch of people who happen to live in the same area as the armed assailant, or who have the same cultural background, I'm not justified. This is also what the terrorists do.

And even if I assert that the great-aunt aided and abetted the armed assilant by feeding him dinner last Tuesday, and that the people who life in the same area as the armed assailant are guilty by association, that still doesn't justify me killing them.

 

[AStone]

recursive ad hominem

ad hominem = attack on the arguer rather than upon the argument. Read the bolded section for clarification and tell me in what way the statement was directed anywhere but upon the previous posters.

I can see your point, but then the argument about ad hominem becomes recursive (i.e., characterized by processes which can be indefinitely repeatedly applied to their own output).

That is, if Coylh's 'attack' of those who were ostensibly using ad hominem makes his statement ad hominem, then your 'attack' of his 'attack' would make your statement ad hominem, and my 'attack' of your 'attack' of his 'attack', etc... ad naseum.

My point is, I consider ad hominem as an attack on some aspect of the person not directly related to the argument itself. But criticizing others for using ad hominem is not ad hominem.

For example, if I argue that the position of person X is wrong because he is a member of the Z party, or because he is a person of Y race, or because he is (imo) a pinhead, or because he once used (name your drug), then I am guilty of ad hominem.

The logic of a person's position does not necessarily depend upon political party or race. I know people - some of whom I consider friends - who are politically at right angles to me, who are of a different race or who have used drugs in the past, yet I don't evaluate the logic of their positions based on that.

One must separate the argument from the person in every case. An argument or position should stand or fall on its own, as if it were written by anonymous.

My interpretation of Coylh's statement was that he was criticizing others for attacking Vonnegut himself instead of his argument. He was correctly pointing out that there is nothing in the label "pinhead" that helps me understand what is wrong with Vonnegut's statement.

I am NOT defending Vonnegut's position. I'll leave that for others to argue about.

But I am saying that calling him a pinhead or criticizing him for using drugs during his life doesn't help me evaluate the validity or nonvalidity of his position about a particular issue.

Nem

 

[Boss Spearman]

I'm glad I don't read his stuff.

 

[denfoote]

Some call it treason!!

Pinhead.

No. Terrorist at best.
Traitor at worst!!
The liberal's treasonous bent is coming out!!

 

[coylh]

... we need to apply the high standards of high school debate club when making up responses ...

I agree. I think we make better decisions when contentious ideas are discussed in a structured way. I suggest following these guidelines.

1. Limit the scope of your argument.
2. Agree on key definitions.
3. Agree on the basic facts.
4. Draw a logical conclusion.
5. Avoid logical fallacies.

Adults ought to be able to talk about politics without name-calling.

 

[lysander]

Place holder

I am running out of time to finish the huge paper I have due in the morning...call this post a place holder so I can return to my argument later.

Out for the night,
Lysander

 

[Ryder]

Kurt proposes what he thinks motivates others and what they must feel like and that makes him a supporter?

 

[spooney]

My question on this is why do people who say things such as this always wait until they are in Australia or Europe or anywhere besides the United States to say these things. Example the Dixie Chicks, she didn't bust off her famous quote in front of a crowd in Waco, she waited until she was in England. I wish they would just have the courage to say this stuff were they know it will be unpopular instead of talking behind our back.

 

[jkswiss]

Well, back to the original article. While I believe what these terrorists are doing is wrong, I do not believe they are cowards. The word "brave" might be a word to describe them, along with being a religous zealot. I remember my CO talking about the bombing of the USS Cole. He said that the guys that did this weren't stupid, were not cowards. It took guts to do what they did, and that we weren't to underestimate them. He then asked us how many of us would be willing to undertake that sort of mission and sacrifice our lives. He said he sure as hell wouldn't. He stated that this was the kind of resolution we were up against and it wasn't to be taken lightly. This wasn't some joe schmo officer saying this but a first rate submarine officer that is now a deputy commadore. He said that a few years ago but its stuck in my head.
Anyone that helps out the US is an enemy to them, and these guys want the said goverment to know that they have been marked as one. These terrorists cannot face the might of the US military head on. They know it, we know it, and these underhanded terror tactics is the only real way they can get any headway against us.
Alls I can say is that if some foreign goverment came onto US soverign soil, and occupied it, I would be doing my damnest to drive them out.

 

[Master Blaster]

I think that the proper term to describe the homicide bombers is Insane.

They have been indoctrinated to commit an act which will not benefit them or their cause in any way what so ever. All they are doing is enraging their enemies, turning world opinion against their cause, increasing the suffereing of their own people, and ensuring that they will spend enternity in HELL.

They are intentionally targeting innocents.

Oh and BTW Lysander you are WRONG.

You can say that the earth is not a planet, that the sun does not rise every morning, and that the sky is not blue, that suicide bombers are morally justified in what they do.
You can say thet morality / legality is relative.

But that does not change the fact that you are WRONG.

Kurt Vonnegut is also wrong.

Have a nice day

 

[shaldag]

The point is not the people who carry the bombs and blow themselves up.

The point is the people who send those folks. Lets face it, it's not as if they choose family members to do their dirty work.

Yes, they deliberately target civilains, specifically children, to shock the world.
They succeed.

These leaders then hide near hospitals, schools, etc so that any military action against them will necessarily result in maximum damage to civilians, especially children. Seems to me that any "soldier" (as I was taught the term) would go to any lengths to protect those children from harm, rather than use them for propaganda purposes at the possible expense of their lives.

Vonnegut can say whatever he likes. He is at least as qualified to do so as say, Sean Penn. Whether or not their opinions have special relevance is another matter. I would say that their opinions are as valid as those held by the guy who works in the roadlkill-disposal truck in my county, or any other citizen.

But, as for me?

I think that anyone who cannot distinguish between the actions of the average US soldier and the average suicide bomber has no moral compass. None at all.

 

[Beethoven]

Beethoven,

As I mentioned earlier that's where the chicken/egg argument comes into play. For argument's sake I'll use a playground analogy.

If Timmy (the schoolyard ruffian) walks up to Bobby (the golden child) and punches him in the face, Bobby is within his rights to respond in kind...and to possibly inflict enough damage to remind Timmy that a repeat performance isn't welcome. I think we can all agree that Bobby's actions are justified from a self defense standpoint. We are able to trace the conflict back to the responsible party, the one "who started it." This doesn't mean that Bobby can follow Timmy home after school and kick his dog because Timmy is a jerk does it? I think we would agree that would be wrong. Escalation is the real issue.

Suppose Timmy punched Bobby because the day before Bobby had made fun of Timmy's mother? This is where we fall into the trap of allowing or advocating an act of aggression because it is supported by moral justification. (don't make fun of my momma!) My mom always told me that I wasn't allowed to start a fight because some kid at school made fun of her.

In the complex real world we don't know who started it so it is hard to lay exclusive claim to moral superiority. We are all blameworthy on some level.

How do you make enemies? I am of the opinion that the vast majority of us have our enemies selected for us...by people who have power and interests that supersede our own. I think most of us (on both sides) are like Timmy's dog. We didn't do anything to anybody...and some ***hole comes up and kicks us in the ribs. Pretty soon, everybody has a dog in the fight.

P.S. I really enjoy your music.

First, I pray to God I was capable of producing anything approaching Beethoven's music...

Second, your entire analogy/argument is inapplicable here because we aren't talking about an enemy that wants to injure/punch/kick or merely poke fun at us; they want to KILL us.

There is no "please sir, don't do that" or anything of the sort; this game is for keeps.

Comparing a bunch of terrorists bent on MURDERING US ALL with a schoolyard fight is about as bad and irrelevant an analogy as it gets.

Kurt Vonnegut is still an idiot and I still wish that his days on this earth are short.

 

[AStone]

I think that the proper term to describe the homicide bombers is Insane.

They have been indoctrinated to commit an act which will not benefit them or their cause in any way what so ever. All they are doing is enraging their enemies, turning world opinion against their cause, increasing the suffereing of their own people, and ensuring that they will spend enternity in HELL.

They are intentionally targeting innocents.

MB et al, I'm still trying to sort through all these arguments. I haven't yet formed a firm opinion, but you can help with that.

Please help me understand this: if intentionally targeting innocents earns the designation "homicide bombers" and guarantees an eternity in "HELL", then does that mean we should label those who firebombed European cities in WWII and the atomic bombs on Japanese cities (along with those who sent them) as WRONG, "homocide bombers" & going to HELL?

IMO, neither of those can be justified as 'colateral damage'. Entire cities were targeted.

I'm just looking for moral consistency here.

Thanks in advance for clarifications.

Nem

 

[Master Blaster]

Please help me understand this: if intentionally targeting innocents earns the designation "homicide bombers" and guarantees an eternity in "HELL", then does that mean we should label those who firebombed European cities in WWII and the atomic bombs on Japanese cities (along with those who sent them) as WRONG, "homocide bombers" & going to HELL?

IMO, neither of those can be justified as 'colateral damage'. Entire cities were targeted.

I agree 100% with you. Dresden was targeted to kill civilians and create terror among the Germans.

Japan well the purpose was to shorten the war so fewer American and Japanese would have to die, According to Emporer Hirrohito it worked.

But what do these two events from 1945 which we cannot go back and alter, and which we would not repeat in the future, have to do with the current situation of Homicide bombers intentionally murdering innocent civilians?????????

How do these happenings in past wars justify what the bombers do now?????
Are you saying that the 6 yearold girl, her mommy and little brother blown up by the Homicide bomber in London 2005, have to pay for the allies acts in Dresden 1945??????????

 

[Cosmoline]

Please help me understand this: if intentionally targeting innocents earns the designation "homicide bombers" and guarantees an eternity in "HELL", then does that mean we should label those who firebombed European cities in WWII and the atomic bombs on Japanese cities (along with those who sent them) as WRONG, "homocide bombers" & going to HELL?

By that period in WWII the war had become a total war. Most international conventions and treaties had been cast aside by both sides. Initially neither side in Europe bombed any population centers. Then some bombs hit Berlin and Hitler gave the OK to bomb London. The UK then returned the favor, along with the US. In the Pacific no notions of war crimes had ever been respected by the Japanese. They felt free to kill as many civilians as they cared to, and again we returned the favor. This is what happens when the parties to a war abandon the rules of war. In addition, by that point in the war there were no non-combatants. Everyone was involved.

In the current war, howevever, the US still has the gloves on. If we didn't we would long ago have firebombed the Muslim holy sites and felt free to flatten any town in Iraq from the air instead of risking our soldiers' lives by sending them in.

I agree that the bombers who attacked the Cole had a measure of courage--but they were taking on an armed military vessel with the ability to defend itself. Blowing yourself up at a disco or wedding party does not take courage--it just requires insanity

 

[AirForceShooter]

and to think Geraldo was his son-in-law one time.


AFS

 

[AStone]

How do these happenings in past wars justify what the bombers do now?????

I made no assertion about 'justification'. That is your word.

Are you saying that the 6 yearold girl, her mommy and little brother blown up by the Homicide bomber in London 2005, have to pay for the allies acts in Dresden 1945??????????

I'm not "saying" anything, let alone that. I asked a question, and you offered an answer. Please avoid committing a logical fallacy by putting words in my mouth.

I also addressed my question to MB et al, which means 'and others'. Therefore, before I respond - IF I respond - I'll allow others to express opinions.

Nem

 

[shootinstudent]

In the current war, howevever, the US still has the gloves on. If we didn't we would long ago have firebombed the Muslim holy sites and felt free to flatten any town in Iraq from the air instead of risking our soldiers' lives by sending them in.

Thank heavens the gloves are still on then. Bombing the Muslim holy sites and flattening Iraqi towns in the current political climate would not just be bad press; it would guarantee a never ending war.

If I lived in Israel today, I'd be praying for my grandchildren's sake that no one is ever dumb enough to attack the Muslim holy sites. If that happens, then all it will take is a long period of US disinterest in Israel (Europe already doesn't really care), and the resentment and hatred the Arabs will have built up will wreak havoc. The best long term strategy is to aim for a future where Arab youths don't have any particular reason to go die fighting Israel...not to guarantee a future where most of the world hates with every fiber of its being the US and Israel together.

Yet another reason why Mr. Vonnegut is way off track on this one. All that the suicide bombings are doing is ensuring that for generations to come, people will speak with contempt and hatred for the groups that perpetrate the attacks. Behaving like butchers is always a dumb idea in the long run, because other people will notice and they will treat you like butchers...I think the idea that you can kill your way out of the situation is proven false by now.

 

[Dr.Rob]

I don't have to agree with everything Vonnegut says to enjoy his writing.

Nor do I have to walk lock step with my president to be a patriot.

Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing... the right to disagree is fundamental... try to keep that in mind and keep it civil.

 

[longeyes]

The best long term strategy is to aim for a future where Arab youths don't have any particular reason to go die fighting Israel...not to guarantee a future where most of the world hates with every fiber of its being the US and Israel together.

Trillions of oil dollars that passed through Arab coffers should have already ensured that.

"Never-ending wars" are not an American thing. Until three decades ago most Americans were barely aware of the Muslim world beyond Ali Baba, flying carpets, and sloe-eye women in heavy wrap. And they were content to remain that way.

 

[AStone]

Well said, Dr. Rob, well said.

 

[Shalako]

I interpret Vonnegut's statements to read, "Root for the underdog!!!"

It's more romantic that way. You can also feign compassion for the poor poor downtrodden fanatics.

A few mantras from Leftist 101.