ahhhhhhhh! someone call the PC police!

Very stupid people, but very brave, I suppose. Brave in the same way that a japanese kamikaze pilot was brave. (This only applies to the suicide bombers who kill themselves by blowing themselves up against military targets such as military checkpoints. Before anyone calls me a traitor, being brave doesn't necessarily mean you were right, it just means you were brave.)

AH HEM!!!

Bravery usually implies a selfless act of sacrifice. Being promissed a bunch of virgins and eternal paradise with a free ride for your family as a kicker is hardly selfless. Not to mention that a fair portion of these don't end up with a choice in the matter in the end.

Oh yeah, Mr. Vonnegut... well, the jerk store called and they are all out of you! So there.

Match. Set. Point.

sidus: Bravery usually implies a selfless act of sacrifice. Being promissed a bunch of virgins and eternal paradise with a free ride for your family as a kicker is hardly selfless.

Wouldn't that mean there are no Christian heroes?

SockMonkeyHolocaust,

I had sex with your wife!

I think we should examine more closely what one person thinks.

Remember the Hierarchy of Importance regarding one's opinion:

(1) Celebrities
(2) Politicans
(3) Journalists
(4) Bloggers
(5) Farkers
(6) Cable news talk show hosts
(7) Relatives
(8) Pat Robertson

Brave?..I think it's cowardly. You don't feel anything and you're offed in a micro second. I find it quite cowardly. Bravery is going into the battle, doing damage, coming out and do it all over again and again. That's bravery.

What really has suicide bombing accomplished anyway, beside killing a few people? Societies absorb and move on. If they really wanted to a shot at winning this war they would be hitting oil infrastructure...everywhere. Collapse the west's economies. That would do far far more damage.

So it goes.

nickyhopkins
That's not funny. His wife is in a coma.

jimmyhaha

Exactly Jimmy, if you are to use that logic, their are only atheist heroes, since, upon their death, they believe their conciousness will truely not exist anymore.

Of course, to most, the "brave" are just the ones who agree with them.

/bah

Thread summary:

A: Kurt Vonnegut supports the terrorists! He said they were doing a good thing!
B: No, calling someone brave doesn't mean that you support them. Courage does not imply goodness.

so, do we switch the argument over to this thread, or just firebomb it and wander around aimlessly?

sidus: Bravery usually implies a selfless act of sacrifice

Are you arguing that bravery can only exist if you believe in true altruism?

the_gospel_of_thomas: Right. Because US troops have never caused a father to lose his daughter. Oh right, that doesn't count as a civilian death...because we're Americans, and we can do no wrong.

thejoyofpi,

You forgot:

C: Batshiat crazy rant about the Jews.
D: Batshiat crazy rant about the Arabs.
E: Batshiat crazy rant about why the state took away daughter
F: Pictures of Farker's daughter who was just born

sidus: It requires courage to defend yourself or die for your beliefs. That's not selfless sacrifice, though.

GaryPDX: Brave?..I think it's cowardly. You don't feel anything and you're offed in a micro second. I find it quite cowardly. Bravery is going into the battle, doing damage, coming out and do it all over again and again. That's bravery.

From their standpoint, what would be the point of attacking American forces directly? They are totally outmatched. As far as I can see, they've suited their means of attack to match the scenario.

[Note that I'm only referring to bombers who attack military targets.]

It requires courage to defend yourself or die for your beliefs

but if your beliefs are that god will reward you if you blow up civilians who are not involved in the conflict (as in Jordan recently), you are not dying courageously in any sense of the word

albo: so, do we switch the argument over to this thread, or just firebomb it and wander around aimlessly?

I don't know about you, but I'm in the mood for a game of Twister! Who's with me?!

Hi ho.

albo: but if your beliefs are that god will reward you if you blow up civilians who are not involved in the conflict (as in Jordan recently), you are not dying courageously in any sense of the word

In one way, it's easier to say that they are dying because of a twisted religious belief. Saying that it's partially politically motivated would make it harder for our politicians, as it would imply that its our western foreign policy that has contributed towards the situation.

Yes and . . .

OJ is strong and good with a knife.
Robert Blake is a good shot.
Hitler was an effective public speaker.
The 9/11 hijackers could fly planes.

Those were all good qualities and they were all used by bad people to do bad things.

mindbuzz,

Yes, as long as they people they bomb are dark of skin (and therefore heart and mind as well).

Here is the excerpt:

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."


I don't see anything terribly offensive in his remarks. It sounds like a frank discussion about the world. The kind of discussion that is missing right now. He has an opinion and defends it using examples and experience. the "terrorist are animals" argument is very shortsighted and does nothing to win the battle other than making it easier on the conscience to kill the enemy. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the enemy on both sides of the current war on terror that can only lead to endless bloodletting. I would hope we would not end up like Middle East where war and death become commonplace for centuries.

Kurt has some pretty damn good credentials. If his opinion is disagreeable, then defend the opposing point.

GaryPDX
Brave?..I think it's cowardly. You don't feel anything and you're offed in a micro second. I find it quite cowardly. Bravery is going into the battle, doing damage, coming out and do it all over again and again. That's bravery.

So all the times that American soldiers have sacrificed their lives for their fellow man, or have gone on "suicide missions" -- those guys were all cowards? I appreciate the education.

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" - John 15:13.


the_gospel_of_thomas
*This is where an Imgage would be posted of father holding the lifeless body of his blood soaked daughter after a "sweet and honourable" terrorists detonated a bomb in a busy Iraq street, killing the child with sharapnel of metal and glass*

How about I post that famous photo of the naked Vietnamese girl burned by napalm, instead?

I'm not even sure what your point is.

Vonnegut: "Suicide bombers are brave and to die for what you believe in is honorable."
the_gospel_of_thomas: BLOWN-UP BABIES! FARK YOU, VONNEGUT!

Yeah, I guess you won the argument, alright...

the_gospel_of_thomas: You do realize that we kill civilians too, don't you?

the_gospel_of_thomas,

The photo you posted is anecdotal, homes. Let's quantify here, if you're going to argue.

Remember that time we gave those Indians blankets? Got any photos of those folks?

BTW, I do not agree with him. I think the suicide bombers are exactly motivated by twisted religious beliefs. I also believe that same thing about abortion clinic bombers, the Bushido code kamikaze runs in WWII, the Spanish Inquisition, among many other atrocities in history.

Zealots in all flavors (Nazis, fascist, McCarthyism, etc.) almost always leads to tragedy.

I don't know about "brave" or "sweet", but I agree with whoever that original person was that said suicide bombers aren't cowards. It doesn't seem right to criticize their tactics since they don't have many available. I don't agree with their ideology, but to say they have to fight wars like we fight wars is pretty ricidulous, especially since they don't have military capacity like we do.

Uh boy. Here we go.

Hitler was a genius politician.

Eichmann was incredibly efficient at coordinating train schedules.

etcetera. The point being that a skill or trait is a morally neutral thing; it is how the individual gifted with that skill or trait chooses to use it that matters.

Thanks for your time. You may now ignore me and continue to villify Vonnegut as a senile traitor.

From the full interview linked in the link:

And I regard anybody who is a soldier in any army that is at war as a brother of mine. I've been back to Dresden three times now and when I go there, I'm treated as a hometown boy.

Why are so many people here trying to defend the killing of civilians by their side but condemn it when it's done by the other side? The previous thread had way more logic going than this one does.

...or what 2005-11-21 05:08:27 PM milk_plus said, but better.

Except that OJ was innocent.

madness

Everyone's fanning the flames for when this goes to Lite.

Why are so many people here trying to defend the killing of civilians by their side but condemn it when it's done by the other side

there is a difference between doing it by accident and purposefully stepping into a wedding reception and turning the guests into bloody chowder

madness I think you misunderstand, me at least. I don't like killing civilians, and I don't like what the terrorists are doing or what the passive Muslim population isn't doing. But if you accept that these people have a cause worth fighting for, it seems ridiculous to say they can only fight in the same way we fight. Because if they restricted themselves that way, they would hardly be able to fight at all.

albo

I think that all the posters here (and perhaps Vonnegut as well) think that targetting civilians is an inherently cowardly and vile act. However, incidental civilian casualties while going after a military target are just something that happens sometimes.

I think that the interviewer was a little too zealotous to even make that differentiation. "Omg.. don't you think terrorists are messed up in the head?" and such. It just ends up making both Vonnegut and the interviewer look like douchebags.

albo: We've specifically targetted civilians. It's not always "accidental collateral damage"

But if you accept that these people have a cause worth fighting for, it seems ridiculous to say they can only fight in the same way we fight.

we are all humans, not apes. having what you think is a good cause does not absolve you from blame for inhuman actions committed in the name of that cause. i think the civilized world can agree that there is a bottom limit beyond which is inexcusable savagery. and suicide bombing a wedding reception crosses that limit.

albo: having what you think is a good cause does not absolve you from blame for inhuman actions committed in the name of that cause

Does that include a certain camp in Cuba?

albo
One natural result of dropping bombs in a populated city is dead civilians. It's like the BOOM sound. It isn't the primary reason for the bomb but it will happen.

We drop bombs trying to kill as few civilians as we can while killing terrorists and insurgents. It's hard to do well because insurgents and terrorts don't wear uniforms. They blow up markets to scare the people that aren't killed and they put bombs in the road because they don't like us very much.

Invade a country and most of the time you get insurgents. Bomb insurgents and most of the time you'll get civilians too. All of this is and was predictible.

etymxris based on your response to me, we totally agree. They're just using geurilla tactics but they're using them on civilians who aren't part of the war.

albo, the USA has targeted civilians in this and most of our wars. We fire-bombed Japanese cities specifically because it would be more destructive to civilians and their homes. Dresden and many other cities received the same deliberate fate.
TypographicalError, I think I pretty much agree with you, too. What they're doing is not easy but is is horribly evil.

While literally true, in the sense that suicide and murder take acts of will which probably qualify as bravery, this is still an appallingly stupid thing for Vonnegut to say. Murder is murder. No-one needs to be told this.

Baseline philosophy: Everyone has the same moral choice. You only get to choose once. You don't get to take it back. Think very carefully before choosing.

madness

Don't get me wrong - terrorists attacking military targets aren't evil (or good) in my mind. They're pretty much just as Vonnegut describes them. It's the terrorists vs civilians (or US vs civilians, for that matter) which is evil.

I remember hearing some imam or other try to defend the attack on the wedding by saying it wasn't conducted in proper Muslim tradition. It's really scary how strict and serious some Muslims are about controlling every little detail of human life.

TypographicalError
Good! Now we have to flame on about the status of WW2 bomber crews. I say there were no innocent Axis civilians, except in Italy.

I remember hearing some imam or other try to defend the attack on the wedding by saying it wasn't conducted in proper Muslim tradition. It's really scary how strict and serious some Muslims are about controlling every little detail of human life.

every little details of OTHER peoples lives... Kinda like the American Liberal!

jiggs: I don't see anything terribly offensive in his remarks. It sounds like a frank discussion about the world. The kind of discussion that is missing right now. He has an opinion and defends it using examples and experience. the "terrorist are animals" argument is very shortsighted and does nothing to win the battle other than making it easier on the conscience to kill the enemy. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the enemy on both sides of the current war on terror that can only lead to endless bloodletting. I would hope we would not end up like Middle East where war and death become commonplace for centuries.

gilgigamesh: The point being that a skill or trait is a morally neutral thing; it is how the individual gifted with that skill or trait chooses to use it that matters.


You two are being entirely too reasonable - just cut that out right now.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Bill Maher yet. It was stating this same sentiment that led to the cancellation of Politically Incorrect. After Guantanamo, and Abu Ghraib, and the new revelations of the use of white phosphorous and a CIA torture gulag it seems the waters have become only more muddy in the intervening years, and we're scarcely more capable of having this discussion as a society than we were a month after 9/11.

/too bad



"We are all experiments in enthusiasms, narrow and pre-ordained."

~K. Vonnegut