So it goes...

[Lurker]

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."

Source

[Velvet]

"one of Vonnegut's daughters was once married to colourful Fox News anchor Geraldo Rivera"

Now that I didn't know. Not only has Geraldo long been good friends with Cheech & Chong, now it turns out Vonnegut is his father-in-law. Crazy.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I always wonder if it's a good or bad thing that reality is so consistently stranger than fiction.

[scottieking]

I love Vonnegut and one of his great abilities is humanization of most of his characters. Most won't agree with the defense of terrorists but one of the major things I try to get across in the history classroom is empathy. If you were born here and this happened, what would you be like, what would it feel like..etc. About the only part of that statement I don't understand is the equation of suicide bombers to Harry Truman.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

About the only part of that statement I don't understand is the equation of suicide bombers to Harry Truman.

I can't get that either. I'd be more interested in finding suicide bombers with a bit of an Oppenheimer conscience; that might make them more human for me.

I'm not sure what worth there is in valourising radical insecurity, unless it's to highlight the need of people who live under the aegis of a superpower like the US to be a little more humble.

And of course that's virtually impossible, because that kind of insecurity only breeds more, until people start looking like Communists and Fascists in the 30's, each terrified like hell of each other, each driven into more and more radical paths of thought and action, and each driving the people in the middle out of the picture so they can get a clear shot at one another.

[scottieking]

I agree that turning all suicide bombers into heroes is not prudent but I'm not entirely convinced that all intentions fall under the blanket of radical insecurity. I read a book called Jihad vs McWorld, and in it, one of the assertions of author is that the fight is not just religious but a struggle to perserve traditional Arab (or Persian) culture from Westernization. Radical perhaps but who are we to say that if similiar values and institutions were threatened in such a violent way here (and I mean war, not the cultural diffusion we experience today) that these so called radical acts would come forward.

Can you tell I have extra time on my prep today?

[badams]

Terrorists is what the big army calls the small army.

[Guest Low Roller]

Semantics question: What is the difference between an insurgent and a freedom fighter?

[AD]

Semantics question: What is the difference between an insurgent and a freedom fighter?

They probably look different down the barrel of a gun.

ad

[Birdy]

I think it’s hard to subtract religion from traditional Arab culture. Historically, even before the Jews and the Crusades, the Arab culture almost more so than any other culture has held their spirituality in the highest regard. Thousands of years of turmoil and constant change has brought about a people who, embedded with the stories of their ancestors and living a life in constant fear, are ready to bear arms and die for what they believe to be their cause. Just as Harry Truman did when the bomb fell on Hiroshima. Rash decisions are made when your values are shaken to the core.

You’re right scottieking, it’s a little hard for us north americans who go to sleep on down pillows everynight to fathom and those of us who cannot are the ones who coin phrases such as “twisted religious beliefsâ€. Its not even about fathoming suicide bombers, its about understanding the history and why that history has produced the people that it has today.

Basically it’s about seeing in black and white vs. those who see the grey. By the way this article is written, it’s obvious that its author cannot begin to comprehend what “really†is going on here. To him, it’s mere shock value that Vonnegut could say these things. The author, “The Weekend Australianâ€, doesn’t fully understand his subject- that much is clear.

[AD]

and your point of view is completely devoid of sweeping generalisations???

ad

[Birdy]

don't write about something you know nothing about.

why harry truman dropped the bomb on hiroshima.

north americans are fluffheads.

dig a little deeper.

i could go on.

[Birdy]

i guess its a little hard to get into the nitty gritty of arab history when you're sitting at work minimizing every five seconds as someone passes you by. sorry to be so general.

my two cents.. i completely agree with vonnegut. it's time the majority of us at least attempt to empathize instead of criticize something we cannot comprehend.

[AD]

yeah i'd have to agree with vonnegut too, he made some very valid observations for sure.

it's worth pointing out though (and i'm not sure if you were getting at this or not) that the author was right about the 'twisted religious beliefs' part. the people acting out with bombings and the like are definitely brave soldiers as vonnegut claims, but they are also most definitely guided by a very strict and ancient interpretation of islam that can only be described as twisted, as stated by the author. they were both right in a way, IMO.

there's a good riddle from the West Wing that i like. "Islamic extremist is to Islamic as _______ is to Christianity."

AD

[Davey Boy 2.0]

U.S. evangelical Christian pastor Jerry Falwell has put the power of his 24,000-member congregation behind the Friend Or Foe Christmas Campaign. The U.S. group promises to file suit against anyone who spreads what it sees as misinformation about how Christmas can be celebrated in schools and public spaces, reports The San Francisco Chronicle. Liberty Counsel, the conservative legal organization that is sponsoring Friend Or Foe, says foes will get a letter reminding them that "Christmas is constitutional," not to mention a U.S. federal holiday. "We'll try to educate," says Liberty president Mat Staver.

"But if we can't, we'll litigate."

[scottieking]

AD, I use that West Wing thing in class. Here's a clue for the rest

_ _ _ three blanks, three letters

[Davey Boy 2.0]

IRA?

[Birdy]

kkk

[Davey Boy 2.0]

FOX?

[Birdy]

ad, here's my point,

you can't label something that you can't understand. well you can, but it's foolish.

if religion is only an interpretation of its follower, who are we to say that a suicide bombers interpretation is twisted?

we can't.

[Davey Boy 2.0]

GWB?

[AD]

KKK is right.

Here's the follow-up dialog too... (If you're interested, it's from a very interesting episode from Season 3 dealing with the effects from 911. The episode is calld Isaac and Ishmael)

What's Islamic extremism? It's strict adherence to a particular

interpretation of 7th century Islamic law as practiced by the prophet Mohammed, and

when I say "strict adherence," I'm not kidding around. Men are forced to pray, wear

their beards a certain length. Among my favorites is there's only one acceptable cheer

at a soccer match: Allah-uh-Akbar-God is great. If your guys are getting creamed,

then you're on your own. Things are a lot less comic for women, who aren't allowed

to attend school or have jobs. They're not allowed to be unaccompanied, and oftentimes

get publicly stoned to death for crimes like not wearing a veil. I don't have to tell

you they don't need to shout at a soccer match because they're never going to go to one.

So what bothers them about us? Well, the variety of cheers alone coming from the cheap

seats at Giants stadium when they're playing the Cowboys is enough for a jihad, to say

nothing of street corners lined church next to synagogue, next to mosque, newspapers

that can print anything they want, women who can do anything they want including taking

a rocket ship to outer space, vote, and play soccer. This is a plural society. That

means we accept more than one idea. It offends them.

Click here for the entire transcript if interested. Watch for pop-ups.

Am I totally off topic now? Sorry about that.

AD

[Birdy]

fox.. now that's funny.

[AD]

you can't label something that you can't understand. well you can, but it's foolish.

Yeah, I totally get your point. I don't think 'understanding' plays a very big role in the discussion though. There's no way to understand barbarism.

if religion is only an interpretation of its follower, who are we to say that a suicide bombers interpretation is twisted? we can't.

i think blowing innocent people up for any reason is twisted. and i think disagreeing with that sentiment is also twisted.

But I get where you're coming from for sure.

AD

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

"They hate our freedom...." Goddamn I hate that line. "Freedom" is meaningless and purely rhetorical without a preposition and prepositional object (freedom-from-violence, freedom-to-exploit, etc.). Where's George Orwell (Politics and the English Language) when you need him?

I will never give any of the whinging on the Christian Right a moment's serious consideration until they extend to me the right to light up a fattie on the street without losing my freedom to do anything else but get rammed up the tailpipe in prison (not to speak of losing my family, my ability to cross international borders, etc.), or until they extend the right to gay and lesbian friends to do what they like to do as consenting adults, etc. etc. etc. etc. Otherwise, they only want their way, and I remember learning in kindergarten that that's just not fair.

As for Muslim women's rights, while it's a bit ridiculous just to say that they're working on it and at their own speed, there is the risk of allowing the men in those places targetted as retrograde to conflate recognition of women with Western imperialism and give them every reason to fight it. Really, the West doesn't have a lock on recognition of equal rights. I mean, Switzerland finally deigned to give women the vote in, what, 1971? Who in the population here is consistently the target of the worst and most appalling violence? Islam may be fucked up in its present Wahhabi state, just as I'd argue that evangelicalism has been the bane of Christianity for the last century. When Josh on the West Wing tries to tie in Islamic extremism with 7th century culture, he (ok, the writers) not only shows a pretty glossed understanding of what Arabic culture was like at the time, but completely neglects developments in early modernity through to the present, not to speak of the potential for a genuine Islamic feminism to emerge and take firm root (and again, there is plenty of work being done here already).

It's the urge to boil away complexity that drives me crazy (just like my own urge right now not to be typing this and to get back to what I should be doing ).

For me, my temptation (surely the wrong word) is to say that every religious belief is a twisted religious belief; it consists of abstracting away the real into a linguistic formula intended to serve as a substitute for immediate experience. To believe is to elevate memory above awareness. That seems to me to be where people are most prompted to fight and do other stupid things.