US Author Lauds Suicide Bombers

:unamused: Somebody should send this prick to an old folks home

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.

theaustralian.news.com.au/co … 01,00.html

No need to be a prick about it. He IS old. He’s 83. Most people get crotchety and depressed when they are approaching death. You and I will likely be the same. His statements are more understandable if you read the following account by his interviewer, at least to me they are:
theaustralian.news.com.au/co … 47,00.html

He wrote a lot of great novels and now he is old, tired and, like the majority of americans, depressed with the present US administration and its arrogance, dishonesty and militarism. To me that doesn’t warrant hatred so much as compassion.

When a person gets old, they usually start thinking like Mother Theresa: slowly and disjointed if at all. :laughing:

Wait a minute, Mother Theresa is dead. Never mind. :smiley:

I’m a big fan of Vonnegut’s writing. His “blame the money” ideology irks me though.

What he says about self respect however is true. Take that away and you are a shell of human bean. But then again that happened a long time ago, long before GWB, and long before oil.

However, what amazes me is that he will look at one fragment of the situation, the POV of the terrorist, and not the whole picture, ie that these guys are killing their own, an “enemy” that is trying to help them and that they make a point to kill the innocent.

Good books, though I’ll probably skip the essays on Bush.

Actually my profile of your average suicide bomber is one of redemption. I think that is how they are chosen. Young people with huge guilt complexes for their transgressions against Islam. They do need to be brave in one sense, but as an act of redemption bravery is only a part of what such an action would take.

I think it is important to understand what motivates these people. It’s part religious, part economic, part cultural, and entirely political. Understanding something doesn’t in any sense condone it, but it might help you find a solution.

Acts of desperation are never admired especially when they take innocent lives in the process. But let’s be real, war isn’t pretty. The principal of sending one man in to kill 20 makes sense to me. People will die anyway. Modern armies send 20 men in, which in the process spends money, time and ultimately more lives than sending one man in for a fraction of the cost.

However, for the most part they are not killing soldiers, but innocents. This war is not about numbers as in how many more casualties can you tolerate in your military forces. Military forces are for the most part insulated against terrorist attack because they are not soft targets. It’s about undermining military might through asymetry. You can’t be everywhere at all times. Hence, it’s a war of ideas. Not really well suited to the conventional military.

I whole heartedly agree, Fox but this is not conventional warfare. Many larger armies have fallen to such tactics. Where casualty rates of both innocents and military targets took it’s toll and the invading or superior army had to retreat for fear of moral (see morality). When you think about it, history repeat itself. Random attacks, unconventional tactics, guerilla warfare has/had dominated the battlefield. It’s been a long goddamn time since we lined up row by row to play a chess game with eachother which led to a slaughter standing still. Fierce loyaty and unwarrented pride have forced people to do these things. Let’s not forget that modern or conventional warfare used to include massive and inaccurate bombings of towns and cities.

Arsenio Hall “Things that make ya say…hmmmmm”

Not only to mention that it was only untill the first Gulf war where precision bombing (whata joke) was introduced. Before then, the philosophy of ‘throw as many rounds down the line’ was employed.

One more thing: The suicide bombers not only kill innocent people but they also incite a form of sympathy for their actions within the community which then leads to the belief that the invaders or the people are tryin to help (Coalition Forces) are not doing their job. Hence rallying/swaying the people onto their side of the line.

Send one man in for the cause who kills 20 whether innocent or not does the job of 20 highly trained Marines who go in to ‘subdue’ or kill the opponent which usually consists of only a handful or worse, mearly one man. Emotional/ Pysocological warfare is a BIATCH.

Somehow a bomb accidentally hitting a wedding party seems a wee bit different to me from a man with an explosives belt deliberately walking into a wedding party just to kill himself and as many wedding guests as he can.

But that’s just me. You may, of course, feel differently about it. :loco:

Somehow a bomb accidentally hitting a wedding party seems a wee bit different to me from a man with an explosives belt deliberately walking into a wedding party just to kill himself and as many wedding guests as he can.

But that’s just me. You may, of course, feel differently about it. :loco:[/quote]

My response to that was…