POINT clarification

Submitted by Adam Tate (United States), Jan 27, 2006 at 23:43

The ...comment about Mr. Vonnegut being a "peace activist" is utterly confused.
EXAMPLE: Asked if terrorists are comparable to soldiers, Vonnegut replied: "I regard them as very brave people, yes."
Did he say that what they're doing is right? Or did he simply answer what he was asked, which was, what is the social status of a terrorist compared to that of a soldier?

They're fighting and dying for what they believe in, just like our American soldiers are doing, and that's honorable, is what he said; not that they are in the right in doing so.

Terrorism is wrong, and we all know that, so does Mr. Vonnegut, but it is honorable. Dying for what one believes in is the most honorable thing a person can do. The fact that they may be dying for a mistaken reason is irrelevant, it doesn't take away from their courage and bravery. Terrorists should be recognized for their courage and bravery, not for their ideas. (I don't think I could knowingly kill myself. Therefore I can respect a terrorist ability to do so, yet understand that it is for the wrong reasons.)
One might ask if dropping bombs from a plane is less honorable than sacrificing ones on life.

POINT: Mr. Vonnegut never, by anything he says, does advocate war or violence or anything terrorism supports.
It seems that the "deep end" that Mr. Vonnegut has so tragically fallen into, is too deep for some to understand.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".