"Surely Vonnegut recognizes the barbarity of targeting innocent civillians."

Well thats what the american military is doing -right now- in iraq. so it seems perfectly resonable that they should be fighting back with as much force (if not more as it is their homeland). you heard about the use of white pospherous, the horrible prison environments and the picking up of farmers, branded as terrorists right? I dont know why people, such as yourself, havent made the relatively small leap into thinking that maybe its not the best idea to save a country by blowing it and its people to bits.

the american people need to realize that when they elect people who perform horrible acts, they themselves are responsible for those acts. thats the other side to democracy and freedom. you have to pay for the choices your country, your govt, makes.

Actually, I've written about the use of white phosphorus previously. Vonnegut's brilliance has been in recognizing the depravity of the entire human race, not limiting it to one culture or nationality. To justify one group's atrocities based on the atrocities of their enemy is an intellectual cop-out. There is a difference between understanding why people do something and condoning it. I think Vonnegut was simply trying to understand the suicide bomber's mentality, but the author made it seem as if he was condoning it.

Mr. Vonnegut is simply speaking over many of our heads. The statements he made may be unsettling, but they are true. As a proud American , I do know that there are many sides to a coin. Including the edge, which most people don't even notice.

That's mainstream, commercial journalism for you. Twisting what was really said to evoke the response they were truly after.

Vonnegut's brilliance has been in recognizing the depravity of the entire human race

How is it brilliant to lump all humans together and say that they are all depraved? Civilized people are fairly depraved, but civilization has been around for an eye-blink relative to the time humans have been around. So-called "primitive" humans who live (and have been living for a few million years) sustainably are hardly depraved.

The 'sweet' bit is a Roman reference: "dulce et decorum est pro patria mori," wrote Horace, roughly, "Sweet and fitting it is to die for the fatherland." Just want to indicate that he was probably referring to that.

joe: There is a vast gulf of difference between the way that terrorists have quite literally and intentionally targetted unsuspecting civilians (and specifically, civilians in a civilian area, who are in no way directly connected to or near to anything military-like), and the civilian casualties that occur in Iraq, where the intended target is military, but the civilians are either militant civilians, too close to the combat, or difficult to distinguish from the target. Disagreeing with the Iraq War, GWB, or our policies in general does not give you the blanket right to make such distortions in the course of making your arguement.

Considering Mr. Vonnegut's body of work and the dramatic narration of the interview, it sounds as though vanity and self-promotion are in play. If the author "gives up" and "can't be bothered" to get clarification from his subject on such incendiary topics, how can the interview be taken seriously?

I don't see anything different in this `journalists` presentation of Vonnegut's remarks to any other coverage of the war in Iraq. It's always a given that `we` wouldn't do anything bad, and that any defense of the opposition - people defending their homeland against an invasion seen by many in the west as illegal and immoral - is `justifying` suicide bombers etc. It certainly makes the anti-communist hysteria of the '50s or support for Nazism in the 30s and '40s seem easier to understand as essentially it's the same mindset at work.

Civilians are inevitably killed by Americans. However, the Americans are not targetting civilians. By contrast, the ones targetting civilians in Iraq are by and large foreign Arabs coming in to the Sunni areas over the Syrian border. They are the ones that like to do things like blow up markets, execute school teachers, and hold entire neighborhoods hostage with fear so that they may move freely among the populace. It is precisely the American's unwillingness to target civilians that allows them to do this.

With regard to what Kurt Vonnegut said, I would say that terrorists that target civilians are not very brave. Bravery is when you take a risk and do something when there is some great likelyhood of failure. In most circumstances, death is failure. Terrorists that use suicide tactics against civilians factor death in to their success. The risk there is being caught before you get to murder innocents. Otherwise, there is very little risk in targetting the defenseless. Likewise, there is very little risk for those that construct and use IEDs against American soldiers and Marines, particularly when they hide among the greater population.

Joe Anonymous wrote:
>... so it seems perfectly resonable that they
>should be fighting back with as much force (if
>not more as it is their homeland).

And my reply:
Most of the people in Iraq fighting against the U.S. are not Iraqis, but in fact opportunists crossing the borders from neighboring countries - they have sensed the power vacuum since the toppling of Saddam and wish to fill it themselves or with people who will run things for their benefit, not that of the people of Iraq. The current government in Iraq wasn't drafted by the U.S., but by representatives elected by the Iraqi people. Elected over the threats of death spelled out by those same opportunists. Yet the people that are strapping bombs to their bodies are blowing themselves up in front of police stations full of Iraqis that have decided to support their own new government of choice. Anyone over there with half a brain cell that only wanted the U.S. out of Iraq would realize that when the violence against the U.S. forces and the innocent civilians that live there ends, there will be no reason for the U.S. to remain, and they will leave. If they had any support from their own people for their ideas, they would then be free to prevail with instituting whatever form of government they [the Iraqi people] want.

The true Iraqi population are paying a price for what the american left keeps portraying as Iraqis fighting against the U.S. invaders, when in fact the "Iraqis fighting the U.S." are invaders themselves from every nation that borders Iraq and seek to profit from the Iraqis delicate situation.

Kudos on the fark!

As I said before, the wording of the article seemed incredibly biased and negative. The newspaper that ran the article is owned by Rupert Murdoch. That doesn't necessarily prove that it's biased. But I'm not surprised.

The author of the original article is putting words in Vonnegut's mouth:

'There's a long pause before Vonnegut speaks again: "It is sweet and noble - sweet and honourable I guess it is - to die for what you believe in."

This borders on the outrageous. Is the author of one of the great anti-war books of the 20th century seriously saying that terrorists who kill civilians are "sweet and honourable"?'

The answer, author, is "no, that is not what he said." Compare:

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

vs.

'Terrorists are great!!!'

Vonnegut said the first; you, original author, accused him of saying the second. At best, you're woefully poor at reading comprehension for an author; at worst, you're lying. Neither do you credit.

I linked to the original article in the Australian paper. And shook my head. Vonnegut is still right. It must be an amazing high to strap a bomb to your chest. And these people are dying for their self-respect. Nowhere does he say he supports their actions, but as Vonnegut knows, the world isn't really about a bunch of independent free wills doing what they please. We're a mish-mashed stew of chemicals and compromised motivations, and the more we try to understand one another and the less we point fingers the better off we'll all be.

It seems clear from the transcript, that the interviewer was trying to force Vonnegut into a particular angle. He asks extremely leading questions and his narrative comment, "he says without a moment's hesitation," is a big no-no for a journalist. Journalists are not supposed to narrate; they report. Authors narrate.

Danky:

So-called "primitive" humans who live (and have been living for a few million years) sustainably are hardly depraved.

Yes they are. Don't idealize the noble savage. There's plenty of fear and superstition and killing, not to mention famine, disease, slavery, subjugation, etc. that goes/went on in your "primitive" societies.

I will agree, however, that for obvious reasons larger society has more to fear and greater means to cause harm.

I think you need to make a distinction between the resistence
to US occupation forces in IRAQ and what is traditionally deemed
to be terrorism.

The US administration cleverly (and quite deliberately) uses language to equate the Iraqi resistance to acts of terrorism.

The question wasn't about whether targeting innocent civilians was barbarous. Vonnegut answered the question that was posed to him; he didn't go off on some kind of tangent.

Think about strapping 30 lbs of C-4 to your abdomen and then intentionally detonating it _for a moral cause_. If you don't think that takes courage - even more courage than donating $100 to Hurricane Katrina relief - you're out of your mind.

"Sweet and honorable" is a poetic reference.

Dulce et Decorum Est, the best known poem of the First World War, by Wilfred Owen.

Here is the last stanza, so you can understand its use:

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace

Behind the wagon that we flung him in,

And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,

His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood

Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,

Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud

Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest

To children ardent for some desperate glory,

The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est

Pro patria mori.

The last line: "The old Lie: It is sweet and honorable to die for your country."

Nyah! Nyah! They do it so WE get to do it. Saying that the terrorist scum are justified in what they do for ANY reason is giving Bush and his pet scum 100% unlimited permission to do what they want. To rationalize these filthy pigs' terrorism in the name of Allah is to say that torturing Iraqi prisoners is perfectly good, moral, and just. The two attitudes are identical. There is a certain bestial "courage" in what terrorists do, just as there would be in the attacks made by any enraged animal, but there is no true courage in it. Terrorists pick helpless targets, NOT honorable combat.

If Vonnegut was referencing Dulce et Decorem est, and it sounds like he was, then I was wrong: He has not lost his edge. He is as sharp as ever and doesn't have to be in front of a typewriter to produce meaningful satire.

I suppose you can't blame the reporter for not knowing the poem, but it was still a shoddy piece of journalism.

"Sweet and honorable" is a poetic reference.

Dulce et Decorum Est, the best known poem of the First World War, by Wilfred Owen.

Here is the last stanza, so you can understand its use:

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace

Behind the wagon that we flung him in,

And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,

His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood

Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,

Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud

Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest

To children ardent for some desperate glory,

The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est

Pro patria mori.

The last line: "The old Lie: It is sweet and honorable to die for your country."

I would agree with the comment that the author of the original interview was lazy; Vonnegut's comments are not that dissimilar to those of Bill Maher whose show was cancelled for suggesting that guys who would fly jets into buildings are brave.

The interviewer failed to move beyond his own immediate reaction, to meaningfully contextualize Vonnegut's comments (suggesting that since Vonnegut is old and wants to die defending terrorists must be a source of amusement), or to even understand Vonnegut's comments.

Trying to understand why people do something is not defending them; though you may end up with that terribly uncomfortable human urge called empathy or compassion if you end up thinking of other people as humans. Much easier to think of them as something other than, or less than, human.

And to further give the Old Man credit, his thoughtful delay in rephrasing his comment about "sweet and noble - sweet and honourable, I guess it is" leaves no question in the mind of this English major but that Vonnegut is quoting the poem "Dulce et Decorum Est" by Wilfred Owen, the WWI poet. The title, which translates as "It is sweet and right (honourable)" puts the nobility of dying for one's country in the context of the terrible reality of death in the trenches from a gas attack. The poet leaves no question in the mind of the reader that he regards that nationalistic and patriotic bit of jingoism as "the old Lie".

I think Mr. Vonnegut may have been simply toying with the vapid interviewer, recognizing he wasn't worth the effort of explaining himself.

This seems like another article based on the all important theory that if you're not with us, you're against us. I'm sure if the author would have asked if Vonnegut condoned the killing of women and children the answer would have been no. Vonnegut has always walked the line of controversy about war, and I don't see this as anything other than his opinion to the questions asked. Comparing our past and current government to terrorism is not that far-fetched of an idea when you think about it. Especially from the point of view of a man who has lived through numerous wars and has seen many sides of human deprevity. Just because an idea is unpopular does not mean that it is wrong and vice versa. One of Vonnegut's greatest talents lies in his ability to analyze all societies flaws with a logical almost omnipitent eye. Commenting on suicide bombers intentions and actions is very comperable to talking about Crusaders killing in a holy war, or kamikaze pilots during WWII, although I'm sure this observation would not have been met with such dissdain. In regards to all war attrocities there should be at least an open debate, which apparently not many people care to have. Holding the government on a pedastool and negativly portraying ideals otherwise is just sad.

To say that the writer of this piece on Kurt was intellectually lazy is to say that he actually had decent intentions. Vonnegut has been a beacon of sanity against the throws of American political reasoning for some time now, and the Aussie makes him seem like a supporter of terrorism. Sure, Kurt is old. Sure, Kurt is tired. The energy behind his humor may be fading, and yes he is close to the grave. But what kind of responses did the Aussie expect from Vonnegut, an affirmation of the harsh dualism of good/evil? "Terrorists are evil, Bill, no two ways about it har-HUR!" Kurt understands a bit more deeply the complexities of war. He speaks honestly and openly. He does not play into the expectations of Aussie writers. Why should he? Artists are meant to be a balance against the pre-approved "sanity" of the mainstream. Its what they do.

A novelist trying to get inside someone else's head? Why how shockingly offensive! Forget that that's what made him such a great novelist in the first place.

Elyas, it sounds like you need to see things from a different, less polarized perspective. The media, especially imbeded reporters in Iraq, are looking for anything they can sensationalize. They want to be the one who "blows the lid off" of cases like the one you mention about the farmers and civilians being the targets. It sounds like your mind is set in how you percieve this war and what is going, but, for what it is worth, I will post this link anyway. It is a Marine's overview of weapons and tactics used by the US military as well as the enemy. Most of it something only a gun nut would appreciate, but at the same time it provides an unfiltered account of how this war is really being fought on both sides and how it has changed since "Mission Accomplished."

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/133585.php#weapons

Now before you accuse me of being the "conservative, pro-war, aren't America neat" type, let me say that I was totally against this war from the start. But there is nothing we can do about it now. This war is not worth my brother's life, but now that we are there and come this far, we are obligated to clean up our mess.

Scott,

I think you need to look at the comments again. "Joe Annonymous" made the comment about the farmers and civilians, not me.

Sorry about that Elyas. Im used to the "Posted by" being on the other side of the line.

One of Kurt Vonnegut's strengths as a writer, philosopher, and intellectual has always been his ability to think outside of the box, and to make us see the perspective from outside. I don't think this is any different. I've been a fan of his for years; I haven't always agreed with him, but I've never thought that "to be agreed with" was his aim. He's the intellectual equivalent of a piccadore ... he pricks, he makes you reconsider. We're not, as a nation or people, lily-white. Nor are we coal-black. Neither are the various groups that make up the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. They're people; they do stupid, outrageous, funny, atrocious, bizarre things ... no different than we would in the same circumstances. But, we're not in those circumstances. Mr Vonnegut's genius lies in his ability to look at them as humans, not as members of one society or another, to put aside his own bias and nationality and look at even our enemies and say "now, why would he do that?". To have someone who has the ability, willingness, and freedom to do that is an endorsement of our own society, and a credit to all that's human. To quote Tom Robbins, "erleichda". To think of something, or to understand it, isn't to applaud it. This has always been something we should encourage ... to question, to understand.

Of course, Kurt Vonnegut is known for being completely straight-faced all the time. That book about World War II, Time Travel, and Space Aliens - that was a literal recording of actual events you know. He never makes use of things such as irony, or sarcasm...

That beings said, he might, just might, be making a general statement about human barbarity. Now bare with me here: Strapping a bomb to your chest in the middle of an innocent city. Dropping an atomic bomb in the middle of a - GASP - innocent city. Of course, that whole Hiroshima thing, we were just serving OUR country. That's totally different you know.

Maybe he's drawing some parallels some people just don't want to see.

the interviewer clearly has an agenda in mind - he/she does not conduct him/herself very objectively

for starters, vonnegut didn't seem to be too far in left field in either context (i.e. pre/post-updated blog info.) the most striking difference between the two was the introduction of the subjective first-person narration in the latter, providing helpful insights into the gross biases of the interviewer.

secondly, regarding the reference to "targetting innocent civilians": I find it very difficult to believe that most/any suicide bombers actually view their targets as innocent civilians. in the case of the world trade center, it would be difficult to imagine someone who grew up in war-torn middle-eastern nations with United States bombs and CIA operatives going off around them to think of the folks who wandered into the twin towers to work that day in the same manner that other mild-mannered americans would think of them. I imagine those people focusing mostly on their lives, friends, family, etc., and going to work to earn a paycheck. to consider targetting those people, a bomber would really have to focus on the latter aspect of these individuals. these people are at work for the corporations and NGOs that are exploiting humanity globally in the name of profit. innocent? it's much easier to consider them innocent having grown up in relative comfort, experiencing some of the very same desires/needs/fears as those folks and getting comfortable, just like them, with the idea that "well, some corporations take advantage of people in some places, but if I'm going to make it from paycheck to paycheck and maybe get a nice car and enjoy an expensive dinner every few weeks, I'm just going to have to get over it and get a job that pays!"

the folks who target americans surely don't believe that ignorance of the consequences of our actions is sufficient to qualify our "innocence." I don't know where that dollar goes when I buy from a corporation that uses its financial muscles to strong-arm politicians and force the hand of legislation and foreign relations. but when I give money to a corporation that terrorizes folks in other parts of the world, or supports that terror, then I'm helping to bankroll it! but let me make this incredibly clear: UNDERSTANDING THE MENTALITY and SHARING IT ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!! I think that Ralph Waldo Emerson said something to the effect that a righteous man has no business in evil trade. if we go to work for or give money to civil rights violators, we are supporting those violations! but does that mean that we deserve to die in a burning skyscraper?!? of course not! I cannot possibly hope to empathize with the desperation that some middle easterners feel about the state of their homeland because I simply have not experienced anything like it! I simply hope that we as world citizens can find ways to unite against corporate/materialist domination and oppression, the sewers of despair and terror.

anyway...I was just farking along and came across this. Kurt Vonnegut has been a longtime fave of mine, so I couldn't help but read what was written here, and now I've come on the verge of ranting. so I'll shut up before it gets worse...

You see, the problem is Vonnegut is an honest man. It's just that no one wants to hear any honesty unless they happen to agree with it. Vonnegut isn't an anti-war author as much as he's a humanist author.

Of course this is outrageous, this points America to the fundamental discussion no one wants to have. The Moral Argument is a term used to describe the difference between a terrorist or suicide bomber and President Truman. All good Americans implicitly just know the difference between a hero and a madman, and to even indicate that subtlty is heresy, vulgarity, and treason all wrapped into a convenient diversion.

To accuse terrorists of targeting civilians as the fundamental evil is hypocritical. Every modern war has involved civilian targets: industrial complexes, infrastructure, sympathizers. In WWII, the most agreed-upon righteous and appropriate moral war, Truman decided to drop two nuclear bombs leveling two entire cities. For the moment, leave it at that: the targeting of civilians. This is just the opening move of a larger game. So far, Americans and most of the Western World haven't even made it past this opening move. The Bush administration along with Democrats and Republicans rally behind hollow rhetoric that never addresses the Moral Argument. The War on Terrorism can't be won because the definition Terrorism hasn't addressed that fundamental problem of morality; and we haven't addressed our own moral discretions, choosing rather to place our faith in that obvious "implicit" knowledge of American Righteousness.

Vonnegut might not question the consequences of the outcome of WWII if the atom bombs were never dropped. Did it ultimately save lives? He would question the simple, honest sanity of wiping out entire civlilian communities in one single flash, rendering suffereing and impotence for generations. Vonnegut has never really had much faith in the human race - period. Do you think God is looking down and justifying the War on Terrorism? Making Exceptions and Filing Briefs for all of human Sin? Vonnegut's fallout is going to be swift, direct, and consuming across the political spectrum. It will all miss the point.

what happened to the shit-ton of comments that were up here before?

This is supposed to be scandalous? Vonnegut's whole oeuvre is about the absurdity of war, about the shared insanity of killing for "peace". He's not a nationalist, he's a humanist, or rather, he's a superhumanist -- he sees what humanity could be and constrasts it with what we are. It's his commitment to this perspective which makes him uniquely valuable as a writer and thinker.

Nothing Vonnegut says here is scandalous from that perspective. But the shallow, narcissistic interviewer wants Vonnegut to be his war monkey instead, to bellow "Terrorists are cowards!" and other nationalistic victory slogans, perhaps while waving an American flag. He criticizes Vonnegut for not providing more "belly laughs" in his recent book, for not providing him with the "unforgettably entertaining" lunch he felt entitled to.

If anything offends me, it's that the Weekend Australian sent a boy to do a man's job. To portray Vonnegut as on the side of the terrorists is to miss the conversation completely. Vonnegut's mind isn't on the fate of Iraq, it's on the fate of humanity. That discussion takes a mind significantly broader than the one Nason seems to have at his command.

We have to remember, these suicide bombers act with the noblest of intentions. Dying for something you believe in takes bravery. Who would disagree with that? As the last poster said, there is a difference between understanding why someone would do something and condoning it.

Certainly, the author here either has an agenda or is simply not smart enough to keep up with Vonnegut. Understanding people is a gift, apparently a gift that this hack does not have.

When Vonnegut says that it is "sweet and honorable to die for what you believe in," he does not qualify it by saying that everyone has to agree with what you believe. We all believe what we believe, and to die for it is the greatest testament we offer to our beliefs.

Whoever wrote this is probably some sort of homosexual pedophile.

Seriously.

Certainly, the author here either has an agenda or is simply not smart enough to keep up with Vonnegut. Understanding people is a gift, apparently a gift that this hack does not have.

When Vonnegut says that it is "sweet and honorable to die for what you believe in," he does not qualify it by saying that everyone has to agree with what you believe. We all believe what we believe, and to die for it is the greatest testament we offer to our beliefs.

Whoever wrote this is probably some sort of homosexual pedophile.

Seriously.

Hopefully it's been pointed out to you, but maybe not:
http://www.english.emory.edu/LostPoets/Dulce.html

He was quoting/paraphrasing/translating a line of poetry. One of my favorites, actually.

Stills of corpses due to US military's white phosphorus use (and link to video):

Here

Its not about condoning it. If you feel as though your country was taken over and your family was at risk. I can invision the high you would get. Walking in to a place with a bomb strapped to your back. In your mind you believe you are the one that is going to protect your family..

"We cloak ourselves in cold indifference to the unnecessary suffering of others....even when we cause it."---James Carroll

Vonnegut is dead on, as usual. Suicide bombers are regarded as martyrs in their country; we are just too culturally myopic to empathize. America doesn't know the difference between courage and cowardice, and we are scared to admit it takes bravery and courage to die--and kill--for one's beliefs. Somehow our soldiers are braver because they bomb kids from a mile away, but a suicide bomber is a coward because he looks his victims in the eye and pushes a button?

Saw an interview with him on PBS a couple of months back for the release of his new book... I think what he was trying to say is a little different from how it came out, which is too bad. People will see him not for his great works but for a few comments. The funny thing is, lots of people in other parts of the world see the situation the same way he does.

intresting prsptive he had on this i do think that the real marters are not evil and should be alowwed to die for what thay beleave in but it is not bush thay are hurting it is thayer own kind killing women and childre is wrong but not saying that killing soulgers at cheak points is right or is it afther what the usa did to the place do thay not think that the folk of the contrey would noty respond to the bombings well bush and his "gang" must be more dumb @power hungray@ than we all think i mean whats next whos next what about the london bombing'swas that just them dieing to prove a point or to put fear into the souls of everyone is fear the new cash of the planet?

You don't fly a plane into a building killing all those people and yourself unless you have balls the size of an elephant's head. Of course they were brave. There is no one in America more brave than those people.

It looks like the writer is wilfully ignoring the fact that Vonnegut is translating Horace's phrase 'dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori', as quoted by Wilfred Owen is his poem Dulce Et Decorum Est - you know, the most famous WWI poem, which uses the phrase with extremely bitter sarcasm.

But then it also looks like Vonnegut's mind is wandering rather.

Oops, sorry - I swear I couldn't see all the other comments pointing out the Owen/Horace reference when I posted mine.

This blogger is disappointed by reading words of a man who made a career out of saying politically insensitive things very bluntly.

Kurt Vonnegut participated in a war where three entire cities were wiped off the face of the earth. He personally witnessed one of them – the fire bombing of Dresden using conventional weapons – while being a prisoner of the German Army. The other two used nuclear weapons. None of these strikes were ‘surgical’ and they did not discriminate between military and civilian targets – ALL were completely wiped off the face of the earth.

The author states
“Surely Vonnegut recognizes the barbarity of targeting innocent civilians. As one who has written about war and lived through the bombing of Dresden, Vonnegut of all people should consider the murder of innocent civilians, whether by a super-power army or suicide bomber, as one of the most despicable acts imaginable.”

I think the obvious answer is He does.

Consider this, having witnessed all of that and given his past comments about the complete and massive insanity of all forms of war, would or could an 82 year old man even see the difference between ‘war’ and ‘terrorism’?

“It is sweet and noble - sweet and honourable I guess it is - to die for what you believe in.” - a statement that is true for solders and terrorist alike.

Like it or not – it is a true statement.

Terrorists are only terrorists in the eyes of the victims. They truly believe they are doing the right and honorable thing.

Look up the history of suicide bombing, I think you will find that the majority of suicide bombers were not religious fanatics but were indeed secular intellectuals.

It's amazing to see how incredibly misinformed people are. Why not believe everything you see that fits your preconceived notion of how the war is being fought?
Our soldiers are being shot at by terrorists hiding behind children, when a child gets shot in the return of fire, they point the finger and say how we kill innocents....
Its a tactic that the so called palestinians have used in israel.
Terror is terror. Killing people drinking coffee is not noble, it is disgusting, reprehensible, unforgiveable, and against every theological teaching of every major religion in the world.
Muslims would be better served to speak out against these monsters than be quiet.
And K.V. is condoning it by justifying the acts as acting out for the US taking away self respect... Make no mistake, we liberated an oppressed country.
The disparity of wealth is the worst of any nation in the world. Saddam lived in palaces while his people lived in squalor.
Do your research before spouting bile. we have not performed 'horrible acts'. Grow up and get real. If you are so against our methodology, what is your solution? Should we legitimize the terror groups by speaking with them? Why? They will always resort to terror to get what they want.
If you truly want us out of Iraq, we need to send more troops, not less. We need to train the Iraqis to handle their own security. Only then can we leave.

I'd agree with Elyas that I think Vonnegut's point is that we really *can't* just claim that these are religious nuts, or anything like that... they have motivations and intelligence like anyone else.

Now, as to whether he *condones* it, obviously, that question was never asked. The interviewer was clearly leading Vonnegut on, and just wanted to give him enough rope to hang himself with. Pretty stupid little interview, basically. His followup questions didn't probe Vonnegut's feelings very well, and as the author said, he "didn't bother" to ask any other questions.

TECHNICALLY he is right.

Suicide bombers are, most of the time, NOT religious fanatics. According to one study, 50% were not even RELIGIOUS, never mind religious fanatics. Most were motivated by what happened to their country or their family, many were well educated and led productive lives.

I suppose you have to be brave to do something like that, maybe, or maybe just nuts or suicidal or psychotic, I don't know.

In answer to above post by Elyas Bakhtiari, the supposed horrible acts us americans have done are part of defeating horrible acts done to us. According to your thinking it was ok to kill people at the twin towers, and it was ok what saddam did by killing thousands if not millions of kurds in northern Iraq back in the 90's. Doing so with chemical weapons I may add oops those are WMD's. Funny how the use of those weapons by saddam was so fast to be swept under the rug and never mentioned I wonder what happened to those chemicals or who he sold them to.

I am also a Vonnegut fan. I believe you are missing the poetic reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Vonnegut#Comments_on_suicide_bombers

"But terrorists believe in twisted religious things"

uhh, all religion is essentially twisted. Kurt seems to be placing himself in the mind of the would be bomber. People seem to think that a "legitimate" government killing and maiming is acceptable, but groups outside of government doing so is abhorent. "Whoops, that smartbomb hit a school on accident, our bad" is just as disgusting as slamming a 747 into an office building. Both methods are unacceptable, to me, but many people would find either method acceptable depending on the "side" they have chosen.

Kurt wasn't defending terrorism at all. I don't understand why the interviewer even pretends that Kurt was defending them, either. What is to gain by slandering him? Kurt answered with an appeal to human nature a he understands it - that humans are violent. The interviewer can't even claim to further the cause of the US occupation in Iraq by assuming that nobdy can understand the motives of terrorists (that they are mad). Kurt suggested that there is a way to understand terrorist motives. How could the interviewer suggest that Kurt's answer was unexpected? KV loathes war and has always pointed out that there is no morally or logically valid participant in a war.

It's incorrect to refer to victims as heroes. Heroes are those who risk their own well-being for others. The firefighters that went into the towers are heroes, but not everyone who died there.

Likewise, we shouldn't refer to everyone we dislike as cowards. As much as I hate the terrorist suicide bombers I have to admit they're brave. Wrong, ignorant, foolish, misguided, but brave. Never underestimate your enemies.

"thats the other side to democracy and freedom. you have to pay for the choices your country, your govt, makes."

And the the luxury of living in a dictatorship ruled by religous zealots is you don't have to take responsibility for anything, including killing your OWN people. Drive through to the next window, your point is moot.

Anyone who has read and understands Vonnegut should find nothing shocking in these statements. He is not necessarily praising the "terrorists," he is trying to get inside their minds and understand their motivations. He is also putting their actions into proper context by showing how their actions aren't much different from "our side."

Bill Mahrer's career was almost destroyed because he too made the mistake of saying nearly the same thing; that suicide bombers might be many things, but cowards they are not.

The thing that strikes me most is the closed-mindedness of it all. The interviewer "can't be bothered" to ask more questions because a few previous answers disagreed with his own narrow world-view.

Vonnegut is great writer, not because he uttered empty patriotic slogans and echoed conventional wisdom, but because he said things that challenged the existing order and made people think. I'm glad to see that even at his advanced age he can still stir the pot up.

-Craig

The principle targets of the suicide terrorists are other Iraqis, primarily at police stations, military recruitment centers, and voting places. These are muslims killing muslims.

Recently, the Iraqis have started protesting and condemning Zarqawi and his ilk. People just don't like being targets of madmen.

Too bad Vonnegut is just another defend-the-murderers liberal.

You can argue that the US should not have gone to war, certainly. You can argue that there is no sight of an end to the war in Iraq. You can blame people who voted for Bush, certainly.

You cannot, however, argue that, by pulling out now, Iraq will become anything more than a fundamentalist muslim state with a penchant for depravity and murder, a breeding ground for anti-american hatred and a perfect place to train more foreign fighters to bring the war to US soil.

In Vietnam, there was a government fighting to take control of the whole country. The south was inappropriately propped up, first by the French and then by the US, against a government bent on re-uniting their arbitrarily separated country.

In Iraq, there will be no government if the US pulls out. The current group in power will eventually be overwhelmed by the fundamentalist backlash we've generated, leaving a void of leadership. Either one of their neighbors will seize the reins, or the fundamentalists will take control of the nation.

This is the perdicament - walk away and watch Iraq become exactly that thing we most fear, or stay and watch our soldiers die for our mistakes. There is no longer a right answer. People will die by the hundreds before either option will bring peace. In the worst case scenario, it will bring on a larger, worse war than what we have now. Instead of fighting in some desert, we'd be fighting on our soil.

We're stuck staying until someone can unify the fundamentalist movement and bring them into the political process.

I don't think that the tactics of the "insurgents" are at all justifiable. Most of the suicide bombs kill innocent Iraqi's. The latest killed shiites while they were in Church. They call it a mosque, but it's the same idea. There is no justification for killing people because they are Shiites. Most of the Shiiates and nearly all Kurds are happy we got rid of Saddam.

I don't agree with using White Phosphorus on civilians, torturning detainees, or grabbing farmers and calling them terrorists. However, there is no hard evidence that White Phosphorus was purposely targetted at civilians and I have not heard from a reliable source that the pictures from Fallujah (skin melted but clothes remain and fused to bone) are 1) real and 2) could be caused by white phosphorus. Even if this was the case, this would not justify nor reason the attacks against civilians. The attacks against US Troops are meaningless. We have turned the government over to Democratically elected Iraqi's.

Detainee mistreatment is inexcusable. The people responsible have been put on trial. Many are in jail. Capturing innocent farmers is wrong, but so is to fight against US troops who are fighting the people who suicide bomb innocent Iraqi's. There have been mistreatment of Iraqi's and fighting American's will not fix that. When evidence is turned over to the media (if you don't trust the US Gov'), then the offending soldiers get their fair trial. Most insurgents are not tortured or mistreated when caught. There have been ZERO videos turning up of insurgents being beheaded after a 3 minute trial like Zarqawi gives to Americans, Iraqi's and other people (mostly muslims) that he captures.

I'm not saying blindly follow Americans. I'm saying FAIRLY criticize us. We haven't sent people to kill at Palestinian Weddings like Zarqawi did. We don't Car Bomb Mosques during worship. We don't threaten and try to kill voters.

Mistakes we have made have motivated non-terrorist insurgents. Empathy with them is understandable. However, to sympathize will terrorists who (murder-)suicide bomb innocent Muslims is ridiculous. Many insurgent groups are now looking to negotiate and participate in elections. Zarqawi is not the voice of Iraq. Please think seriously about who's side you want to be on: Zarqawi's or the US? Being on the side of the US is not against the Iraqi's.

The only defense a terrorist has is that they were programmed to think that way, other than that you must be either crazy or retarded to side with them.
On a side not, Vonnegut is a highly overrated writer. Some of the things he has done were good but I do not see the hype.

Why do I get a feeling they are going to Bill Maher Kurt? Expect Drudge to rub eggs on self and large bold type to grace his disgraceful page over this.