Kurt Vonnegut: truly pro-terrorist

This is absolutely bizarre:

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.

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.”

What on earth? Mr. Vonnegut is a WWII veteran. Am I missing something here? I mean, I know he’s been decidedly anti-Bush from the word go, but this is taking it too far.

Hat tip: Little Green Footballs

More comments via Western Resistance:

Why is anybody surprised by his unhinged comments? His comments are perfectly consistent with his hatred of Capitalism in general and the United States in particular. There is nothing new here really. Just the same-old treasonous sentiments Mr. Vonnegut has felt for so long.

15 Responses to "Kurt Vonnegut: truly pro-terrorist"

Pam says:

November 19, 2005 at 1:07 pm

Vonnegut, 83 I think that is part of it. Not to mention the fact that if you ask someone under the age of 25 who he is, they more than likely would not know, so a bit of publicity to get him in the spotlight can’t hurt.
Big Bang Hunter says:

November 19, 2005 at 2:10 pm

– Its always amusing to see those that have benefited greatly from the dreaded “Capitalistic” system, bite the hand that feeds them. This is what has passed for “intellectual elitism” since the Communist movements in this country dating back to the 20’s and 30’s. Then too, Like screaming Dean, you have to pander to your following.
steve says:

November 19, 2005 at 2:15 pm

Vonnegut, is trying to analyze,in his own mind,how someone becomes a suicide bomber,isn’t everyone? It requires deep religious belief(see Christ) and the desperation of body and soul. Invading Iraq intensified the emotions on all sides. Those that exploit those emotions and use them to create violence and profit are disgusting. Peace begets Peace and war is the anti-Christ. Peace
CT says:

November 19, 2005 at 3:05 pm

There are many writers like this. To call them liberal is to insult liberals. They are communists down to their socialist bones. It doesn’t surprise me these people would rather side with murderers instead of the country that gave them the freedom to pursue careers as anti-American authors. Fortunately, there are exceptions (Roger Simon being a very notable one).

And Vonnegut isn’t trying to “analyze” anything. He hates Bush and the USA more than he hates someone who blows up innocent people in the name of Allah. He is making excuses for terrorists, nothing more.
Pam says:

November 19, 2005 at 4:05 pm

CT-They are communists down to their socialist bones. Which leads me to believe that McCarthy didn’t go far enough in his investigations!:wink:
ttyler5 says:

November 19, 2005 at 4:56 pm

:^D Sister, way back in high school I had a whacko liberal teacher try to shove Vonnegut down our throats in American Lit classes.

I responded with an essay as to why Vonnegut was unworthy of attention in an American Lit class, and suggested he be replaced on our reading list by a substantial American author who had actually contributed something original to American thought, as opposed to a hack like Vonnegut who had no thoughts of his own and was simply playing the game of re-hashing European ideological garbage.

I suggested Isabel Paterson’s **The God of the Machine.**

She had never heard of Isabel Paterson!!! :^D :^D :^D :^D :^D

And she was teaching American Lit!
Lorica says:

November 19, 2005 at 5:31 pm

I would rather read Tolkien thank you very much. – Lorica
Francis W. Porretto says:

November 20, 2005 at 6:21 am

Ttyler5, I’ll bet she’d never heard of Rose Wilder Lane, either…and if she knew of Ayn Rand, considered her a “hatemonger.”

That’s what one gets from an ideologically closed world view.
akiva eisenberg says:

November 20, 2005 at 10:27 am

Note that fiction writers tend to be somewhat divorced from reality. As one ages, the disconnect may become more serious, to the point that reality becomes an intrusive unwelcome guest that must be repelled at all costs.

This pathology becomes intellectually fatal when one has no family to anchor them in reality, and lives surrounded by like-minded mush-brains.
Big Bang Hunter says:

November 20, 2005 at 11:00 am

– ttyler5 – Unfortunately, reading proficiency is not a required talent for teaching Amerlit… Somewhere down the line, (I tend to mark the era of Nam conflict as the usual suspect), the vision of that bright eyed forward looking idealistic “teacher” we all thought we knew, got perverted into a tossed haired, berkenstocked, wild eyed overstressed, ideolog activist. These are the delusional closet commies that are formulating our childrens thinking patterns. It gives me hives everytime I think about it.

– And yes Pam…. Where is McCarthy now that we really need him. Moore shuffles around spouting anti-American garbage while he leafs through his Halliburton stocks… Hanoy Jane continues to aid and comfort the enemies of our country while running her production company in Canada to avoid taxes, and Soros uses his billions to attack the system that feeds him, hiding his wealth in off shore banks. Ideologs like Mapes produce lie-filled non-stories, aimed at manipulating an election, while others of her kind infest the MSM Media. Small minded closet traitors like Wilson attack our administration using the same leftwing media. Men like Kerry, whose wife is the daughter of one of the founders of the Frelimo Communist party in Mozambique, sports a dishonorable discharge, while he sits as a Senator in congress…. Yes….. where is McCarthy indeed…

The rabid left has raised the meaning of hypocracy to a new level…..
steve says:

November 20, 2005 at 12:53 pm

Sometimes the only way to get people to reason is to say outrageous things. Saying something that makes people think is very different than invading countries and killing people as they sleep in their beds. Most of us have only so much outrage and I’ll save mine for war criminals and profiteers. Peace
Service2country says:

November 22, 2005 at 11:03 pm

Cited on http://www.crikey.com.au
“Kevin Cox writes:
Thanks for the piece on the piece about Vonnegut (22 November, item 6). This sort of thing is insidious and demonstrated to me the power of the newspaper. I am a long time admirer of Vonnegut and I read this piece and could not believe the comments – yet I had to sit down and think whether the mud deserved to stick. It did not take long to realise the responses the author got were exactly the responses he should have expected if he had known anything about Vonnegut. Vonnegut admires the soldiers and despises those who send soldiers to fight – particularly where it is such a senseless cause. Of course he can empathise with the terrorists. Of course he can understand their despair and motivations. If only the people who are sending soldiers off to invade and then occupy another country could have had a little more empathy?”

EMPATHY… whats that?

Edited your username …. to insert the “o” .. c’mon, now! –ST
Karl says:

December 5, 2005 at 1:29 pm

wow. Some of these comments are so FUNNY!
Kurt Vonnegut does not need to do anything to up his popularity amongst younger readers (very nice assumpiton though).
Try reading the manifesto before you speak of communism, because I’m pretty sure you don’t know what it is. McCarthy??? I’ll leave it at that.
Praise the all holy dollar!
Dan Sarazen says:

December 27, 2005 at 4:43 pm

Twisting Vonnegut’s views on terrorism
By Mark Vonnegut | December 27, 2005

FOR THE past month or so it’s been said and repeated that my father supports terrorism. The desire to have it be true is almost palpable. If novelist Kurt Vonnegut supports terrorism, then maybe all critics of the war are on some level proterrorist.

It’s my fervent hope that if I’m alive at 83, I’ll have enough left in my tank to make people this angry.

My father cares not a fig about the Middle East. He’s never been there, doesn’t think about their art or writing, may or may not be able to pick out some of their capitals and important rivers on a map. His true heroes are Abraham Lincoln and Mark Twain.

He doesn’t listen to me. When he was going to go on national television he told me he was going to call for the impeachment of President Bush. I told him he’d do better talking about growing up in Indiana in the Depression, how people took care of each other, how much he has loved and celebrated freedom. Kurt Vonnegut calling for the impeachment of Bush is not news.

Like most people, my father can be wrong. I’ll bet you can take most 83-year-olds out to lunch and they’ll say one or two stupid things. It wouldn’t be that surprising if he had said something outrageous and unforgivable, but the plain fact of it is that he didn’t.*snip*

Next time, please post a snippet from the article (not the entire piece) and then a link to the article itself, for copyright considerations. Thank you. –ST
Dave says:

December 28, 2005 at 1:25 pm

That was an interesting bit from Vonnegut’s son.

From reading about this article and Vonnegut’s quotes, it’s my understanding that at one point he was paraphrasing a quote from an old poem about the horrors of WW1 called The Old Lie.

If that’s the case, then his remark about it being sweet and honourable to die for what you believe in was a sarcastic remark. And the point would be that it’s actually horrific and pointless to do it.

In any case, I have to believe that there’s missing context to Vonnegut’s quotes in that article.

Comments are closed.