Bono's Comments on Terrorism

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

the iron horse

Rock n' Roll Doggie
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Messages
3,266
Location
in a glass of CheerWine
Some of what he said in the recent issue of Rolling Stone:


I want to be very, very clear, however: I understand and agree with the analysis of the problem. There is an imminent threat. It manifested itself on 9/11. It’s real and grave. It is as serious a threat as Stalinism and National Socialism were. Let’s not pretend it isn’t.

I think people as reasoned as Tony Blair looked at the world and didn’t want to be Neville Chamberlain, who came back from meeting with Hitler with a piece of paper saying “peace in our time,” while Hitler was planning to cross the channel from France.


On President Bush:

There was a plan there, you know. I think the president genuinely felt that if we could prove a model of democracy and broad prosperity in the Middle East, it might defuse the situation.

……Clinton did exactly the right thing in talking to the Provisional IRA and other extremist elements. Now they have to do the same, in my opinion, with Hamas, and they have to do the same with Al Qaeda. You have to involve them in dialogue.


……People are nauseous about being perceived as the enemy. After Abu Ghraib, reasonable, rational people were saying the most despicable things about America. Imagine that. The country that not only liberated Europe but rebuilt Europe with the Marshall Plan. The country of Omaha Beach. The heroism of people who gave their lives for people like my dad. I mean, this is the United States of America.



http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17119236/bono_the_rolling_stone_interview
 
My first reaction (before opening the thread): Who gives a rat's ass what some over-paid 50-year old rock star thinks about al-Qaeda?

My second reaction (after reading the post): Not me.
 
is this some kind of twisted attempt to make Bono into some sort of neocon? some sort of Bush supporter? after all, he does say the following:


[q]I told Paul Wolfowitz, all of them, to go ask the British army what it's like to stand on street corners and get shot at. Remember that during the British army's first years on the streets of Northern Ireland, they were applauded by the Catholic minority. Go look at that, and ask yourself how that all got turned around.

It was always going to go wrong. I remember in the first moments after "shock and awe," I was watching it at home with [my wife] Ali and I said, "These people have just hidden their guns in the basement, took off their uniforms and come out waving American flags. And they've been told to. They knew this was coming, and they know what they're doing."

[...]

So, some optimistic thoughts: In the near future, distance will no longer decide who your neighbor is. It will be accepted that the slums of Kibera, Kenya, the rural poverty of Lalibela, Ethiopia, the refugee camps of Darfur, Sudan, are at the end of our lane. In the not-too-distant future, the anopheles mosquito will be all but chased off the planet, saving 3,000 children's lives that right now are lost to malaria every day in Africa.

In the not-too-distant future, the rich world will invest in the education of the poor world, because it is our best protection against young minds being twisted by extremist ideologies - or growing up without any ideology at all, which could be worse. Nature abhors a vacuum; terrorism loves one.



[/q]



and other than that, i really enjoyed the article. filled with bono-isms that are somewhere between here and genuine brilliance. he does get the modern era, he does understand how we live now, and it makes me look forward to the new record.
 
I gotta love Bono.

He's just like me. He as an opinion on EVERYTHING and is eager to share that opinion with anyone who will listen.

I know that it can get annoying sometimes, of course.

But overall, I like it. It always makes me smile.
 
Irvine511 said:
is this some kind of twisted attempt to make Bono into some sort of neocon? some sort of Bush supporter?


I don't think so, but it sure isn't the message of Mick Jagger, Neil Young, Eddie Vedder, Madonna, Pink, John Mellencamp, Natalie Maines, etc, etc, etc -- who look around the world and see George Bush as the "real and grave" threat.
 
It seems funny now that people ever thought of the Bush Admin as some sort of threat to anyone, anywhere. I think their collective intelligence was significantly over-estimated.
 
Earnie Shavers said:
It seems funny now that people ever thought of the Bush Admin as some sort of threat to anyone, anywhere. I think their collective intelligence was significantly over-estimated.

Stupid people -- especially stupid people in power -- can be very dangerous.
 
So refreshing to hear a balanced, thoughtful opinion coming from a celebrity instead of the knee-jerk, insipid "Bush sucks", etc. rhetoric we're constantly subjected to.
 
MaxFisher said:
So refreshing to hear a balanced, thoughtful opinion coming from a celebrity instead of the knee-jerk, insipid "Bush sucks", etc. rhetoric we're constantly subjected to.



i agree that it's thoughtful and nuanced, but it does amount to the same thing -- while most of us (including myself) agree with the "threat," the Bush Administration, as Bono points out, has completely and totally and utterly wasted an incredibly historical moment and done incredible harm to the world with it's boneheaded, stupid policies.

i mean, come on, just read it:

[q]So we're in the era of asymmetrical war. The greatest army cannot protect you from hatred that gets busy and organized and has enough of an audience to protect it. There's a moment. Was that true of Caesar? Was that true of Napoleon? No. Might was always right. Strangely, we have now entered a phase where being powerful and having the biggest nuclear arsenal leaves you completely defenseless.

[...]

It was always going to go wrong. I remember in the first moments after "shock and awe," I was watching it at home with [my wife] Ali and I said, "These people have just hidden their guns in the basement, took off their uniforms and come out waving American flags. And they've been told to. They knew this was coming, and they know what they're doing."


[/q]

this is sounding suspiciously like another poster who took Bono's support of intervention in Bosnia to be the same thing as supporting the invasion of Iraq, when, hilariously, all the members of U2 are quoted as thinking the invasion was stupid and foolhearty.

[q] I think the president genuinely felt that if we could prove a model of democracy and broad prosperity in the Middle East, it might defuse the situation. I don't believe that, and in the capacity I had, I told them that.[/q]
 
the iron horse said:
……People are nauseous about being perceived as the enemy. After Abu Ghraib, reasonable, rational people were saying the most despicable things about America. Imagine that. The country that not only liberated Europe but rebuilt Europe with the Marshall Plan. The country of Omaha Beach. The heroism of people who gave their lives for people like my dad. I mean, this is the United States of America.




just real quick here -- does anyone read this and think that Bono is saying that the people who are saying "despicable" things about America were wrong? because i don't. i think he's saying that the US has let the world down with Iraq, with Abu Ghraib, and that we are better than this, that we have high standards to live up to, and we haven't been doing that over the past 6 years.
 
Yeah, it's a comment of surprise, I would say. A few years back, before Iraq was the designated new target, and before word about Guantanamo spread, no one would have imagined that only a few years later more than two million people in Europe and other parts of the world would go on the streets at one day to protest America, and even less that America would set up Guantanamo or Abu Ghreib and deem torture acceptable.
That changed dramatically.

It was a huge debate here in Germany if we really could stay out of Iraq because of our "historical debt" to America, and because it would harm our great relationship with the US. Angela Merkel, then the opposition leader, visited Bush shortly after the re-election of Schroeder to apologize for us staying out of that war, when the vast majority of people was opposed to a military intervention, which together with the flood in East Germany saved Schroeder re-election.
For weeks the most important topic seemed to be whether we ever again could be friends with America. That was utterly ridiculous.

It was quite a shock to see this other "face" of the US, to be honest.
 
Vincent Vega said:
It was quite a shock to see this other "face" of the US, to be honest.



and that face is white, evangelical, SUV-driving, rendition-supporting, torture-accepting, vaguely racist, angry, scared, and desperately in need of someone and something to hate.

it's the face of the modern Republican party.
 
not that i'm saying that bono isn't being completely sincere in what he says (i'm not referring to this article in particular)...i just think that over the years he has diluted his opinions somewhat. and i think much of that has to do with his outreach, and his commitment to getting everyone on board to fighting extreme poverty. people can take all these bits of quotes from interviews for publications and interpret what they will, but even in the biography (such as in conversation) he has admitted that although it is not the easiest thing to do, he will be more careful with what he says in regards to politics because he doesn't want to lose support for his cause.

thats what i find so admirable. he's that committed that he will even sit on his hands about some of the most controversial issues. he's made a promise and he's sticking to it. i don't know if i have that level of commitment for anything. that speaks a lot about his character.
 
Last edited:
Irvine511 said:




and that face is white, evangelical, SUV-driving, rendition-supporting, torture-accepting, vaguely racist, angry, scared, and desperately in need of someone and something to hate.

it's the face of the modern Republican party.

I've just yesterday read an article about a study that focussed on people's behaviour and decisions when they have just been made aware of their own death:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/35278.php
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=1660
The researchers did several testings as to how we are influenced in our political views, our tast in arts and lots of other things, and though I wouldn't agree with the researcher on the point that the Bin Laden video three days before election day was the sole reason for Bush gettin re-elected, there is a terryfying correlation.

I agree, Bono is managing it pretty well to speak his mind, yet keeping that support for his causes, and I think this is more effective that to be all too honest all the time.
 
Irvine511 said:




and that face is white, evangelical, SUV-driving, rendition-supporting, torture-accepting, vaguely racist, angry, scared, and desperately in need of someone and something to hate.

it's the face of the modern Republican party.

What is the word for the opposite of "nuanced"?
 
unico said:
i just think that over the years he has diluted his opinions somewhat. and i think much of that has to do with his outreach, and his commitment to getting everyone on board to fighting extreme poverty. people can take all these bits of quotes from interviews for publications and interpret what they will, but even in the biography (such as in conversation) he has admitted that although it is not the easiest thing to do, he will be more careful with what he says in regards to politics because he doesn't want to lose support for his cause.

I agree - I think he is trying to "sell" the idea of the One Campaign's goal to as large an audience as possible. The neocons are probably a harder sell than other groups, and he has used the return on investment argument more recently. It also seems that his agenda has take more of a backseat lately - i.e. the top issues on the upcoming G20 summit are the weak dollar, trade, high energy prices, etc. IMO, he will face more of a challenge in getting support for his ideas as developed economies face ever-increasing challenges of their own.
 
Re: Re: Bono's Comments on Terrorism

Irvine511 said:




just real quick here -- does anyone read this and think that Bono is saying that the people who are saying "despicable" things about America were wrong? because i don't. i think he's saying that the US has let the world down with Iraq, with Abu Ghraib, and that we are better than this, that we have high standards to live up to, and we haven't been doing that over the past 6 years.

You are so right. :up: He is totally saying that we should be better than that... and sadly this is not the case in more ways than one. It's heartbreaking what has become of this country.

I honestly don't think that Bono can blast off and speak his mind freely on this whole issue regarding the war and the destructive road the Bushies have led us down.
He must be diplomatic and very mindful that he cannot make enemies in Washington.

Also I have to say that Bono has inspired me so much to stand up against injustice in the world so naturally a part of me really misses the pissed off Bono of the old JT days!!!
I really miss those times when he could just spout off in anger!
It was inspiring!
 
^The lack of evidence for a link between poverty and terrorism by Islamic fundamentalists should be matched by actual correlations.

Like that neat study into the over-representation of engineers in Islamist movements compared to other revolutionary organisations.
 
I think Bono has been taken a lot of flack for holding back (too much, some say) on the issue of criticizing the Bush administration. He's trying to be bipartisan in his approach towards tackling world poverty, he's not endorsing any party, so, to an extend, it's understandable. He also said in the RS interview that he didn't talk to Bush directly about Iraq because he has seen it as some sort of abuse on his part. And I really don't believe Bush would give a damn about what Bono thinks about Iraq. The only thing that could really happen is Bono would be denied further access to the White House, which would be bad.

I guess it's not easy for him to balance this. However, when asked in interviews, I think he always makes his opinion on this issue quite clear. Unlike others, he isn't interested in unreflected America-bashing, he tries to see both sides. He's strategic and pragmatic, he has a different idea of "revolution" or "rebellion" than many others.

I like his comments, they are quite sensible and well-balanced. Bono has said many times in the past, that he's a fan of America but that being a fan also means being a critic. He applauds Bush for his efforts in the fight against poverty but he believes that this is one of the few positive things the president has done.
 
Irvine511 said:
is this some kind of twisted attempt to make Bono into some sort of neocon?

No, but I don't blame people for mistaking "neocon" for "modernist" or just being plain-old "principled."

Many neocons were "leftist" (by 1940s standards) modernist academics who didn't take the 1960s and the arrival of postmodernism/relativism all that well. In particular, they tend to be heavily patriotic, and look at the aftermath of WWII and the Marshall Plan as evidence of America's greatness, where we slay an evil entity and use this moment to turn our enemies into powerful allies.

Fast forward to the 1960s, and these neocons perceive the Left as having lost all their principles. They take issue with words like "tolerance," because it implies that they'd have to tolerate people like Hitler if he were still alive; in other words, they believe that there are moments when it is perfectly acceptable to hate someone, and their modernist--and, by extension, futurist--tendencies are still intact. They want to see a world where it's always the end of WWII, and the U.S. is instrumental in overthrowing oppressive regimes and transforming a "Nazi Germany" into a powerful democratic, capitalist nation like today's Germany. It is, in many ways, the classic utopian fantasy of "world peace," coupled with the Trotskyite notion of "permanent revolution" to achieve it (although they would most vigorously disagree with the latter analogy here).

By the election of Ronald Reagan, these now-nominally Democratic neocons find a president who shares their ideas of "permanent revolution," and jump to the Republican Party, where they easily integrate and many become part of the presidential inner circle. It should be noted that Reagan, himself, had a similar background to these neocons. Reagan was a registered Democrat, and was even a stated admirer of Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal, but, unlike the neocons who left, due to foreign policy and philosophical shifts in the Left, Reagan left, because he thought that they had become the party of "big government." Nevertheless, it didn't take much for Reagan and the neocons to adopt each other's passions, and this is probably why Reagan had a series of military campaigns and spent heavily on the military during his presidency.

But I digress, to a point. The reason one might try and interpret Bono's article here as "neocon" is because it's essentially "modernist/futurist" in scope. And, yes, neocons, at their ultimate core, are modernists too. But it's my belief that "neoconservatism" is defined much more narrowly on the basis of philosophy (modernism, infused with the philosophy of Leo Strauss) and all the other baggage I listed above.

At the core, I do think it is time for the Left to figure out what it stands for today, and to put in all the heavy lifting involved to justify it philosophically and logically. I do think that these vague, ill-defined notions of "tolerance" and "pacifism" don't always stand up to vigorous academic scrutiny, and that's where we get into trouble, as then we let all the fanatics do the defining for us, whether its hawkish neocons on one end or reactionary religious fundamentalists on the other. Nature, after all, abhors a void.
 
MadelynIris said:


????

Do you really think he is sitting on his hands about controversial issues?

yes?

last unicorn said:
I think Bono has been taken a lot of flack for holding back (too much, some say) on the issue of criticizing the Bush administration.

actually i disagree. he's won the hearts of many on any side of any issue, because he has chosen to publicly stand firm and tall on one single issue. i think he is receiving a lot more support now for doing so. he even said himself "eliminating stupid poverty is something we all can agree on." to be honest, i think that most of the criticism he faces has less to do with his neutrality. however, if one just closely reads some of the interviews that aren't published in the big magazines/papers (for example, especially in conversation), it is quite clear where he stands.
 
last unicorn said:
And I really don't believe Bush would give a damn about what Bono thinks about Iraq. The only thing that could really happen is Bono would be denied further access to the White House, which would be bad.


That's the whole point, he needs access to the White House so yes, he does give a damn how Bush sees him.... he must be very careful with the words he uses.
And I do think Bush and his admin would hold it against him if B was more out spoken about the war.
 
Back
Top Bottom