Bono's Comments on Terrorism - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-12-2007, 02:23 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Jeannieco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: If the moonlight caught you crying on Killiney Bay oh sing your song let your song be sung
Posts: 4,992
Local Time: 06:12 PM
Re: Re: Bono's Comments on Terrorism

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




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. 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!
__________________

Jeannieco is offline  
Old 11-12-2007, 04:14 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,609
Local Time: 01:12 AM
Anyone else read Alistair Campbell's diary?
__________________

Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 11-12-2007, 04:35 PM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,324
Local Time: 09:12 PM
I read this today and thought it was interesting, in light of the comments Bono makes about the connection between poverty and terrorism.


http://www.american.com/archive/2007...es-a-terrorist
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 11-12-2007, 09:39 PM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:12 AM
^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.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-13-2007, 03:43 AM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
last unicorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: lost in poetry
Posts: 19,446
Local Time: 02:12 AM
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.
last unicorn is offline  
Old 11-13-2007, 07:31 AM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,786
Local Time: 09:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
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.
melon is offline  
Old 11-13-2007, 07:36 AM   #27
War Child
 
MaxFisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 776
Local Time: 01:12 AM
^ interesting post, Melon.
MaxFisher is offline  
Old 11-13-2007, 08:04 AM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
unico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rage Ave.
Posts: 18,749
Local Time: 08:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris


????

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

Quote:
Originally posted by last unicorn
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.
unico is offline  
Old 11-13-2007, 12:32 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Jeannieco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: If the moonlight caught you crying on Killiney Bay oh sing your song let your song be sung
Posts: 4,992
Local Time: 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by unico






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.
Yes, he is a self professed pacifist.

I have heard him say that in several interviews.
Jeannieco is offline  
Old 11-13-2007, 12:36 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Jeannieco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: If the moonlight caught you crying on Killiney Bay oh sing your song let your song be sung
Posts: 4,992
Local Time: 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by last unicorn
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.
Jeannieco is offline  
Old 11-13-2007, 01:05 PM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


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.


One of the very few posts that doesn't blur the line between "neocons" and the Christian right / Palaeoconservatives.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-13-2007, 05:39 PM   #32
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 20,771
Local Time: 08:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Jeannieco
And I do think Bush and his admin would hold it against him if B was more out spoken about the war.
And quite frankly, if they did indeed do that, that would pretty much kill any sort of respect I may have ever had for anyone in that adminstration. To deny helping out with the Africa crisis because someone dares disagree with your war policy would be about one of THE stupidest, coldest things anyone could ever do.

I like melon's post, too, I think that line of thought makes a lot of sense. And I totally agree that the left needs to get its act together-we've got some great ideas and thoughts, we just need to find a way to properly articulate them, and to be just as strong in our opinions as the opposing side is. Don't cave in just because someone dares to challenge you.

As for Bono himself, I love that article, I think he makes some excellent points in there regarding this issue. I see the argument about how it's more educated people who are part of terrorism-I think that makes some sense. But I also think poverty does play a factor. Maybe not a big one, but I think it shouldn't be dismissed.

Angela
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 11-13-2007, 05:56 PM   #33
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,856
Local Time: 09:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Jeannieco


Yes, he is a self professed pacifist.

I have heard him say that in several interviews.


is he? doesn't he say that he sometimes supports military intervention when necessary -- be it WW2, bosnia, or even afghanistan?
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-13-2007, 07:07 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,609
Local Time: 01:12 AM
I thought he said he wasn't a pacifist, or that he tried to be but it just wasn't reality (which it isn't).
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 11-13-2007, 08:17 PM   #35
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 09:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
^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 framing this issue incorrectly. Whenever he comments on it, it sounds like poor people, by virtue of being poor, oppressed and powerless, are prone to terrorism and indoctrination. In fact, the statistics don't support that with respect to suicide bombers (except in the West Bank, where you do see substantial numbers of very desperate, very poor men acting in retaliation). What poverty does, however, is breed a certain kind of resentment which then predisposes the population at large to be supportive of terrorism, to at least some extent. So while poor people may not necessarily be contributing their sons in large numbers, their passive support makes the flourishing of these groups possible.
anitram is offline  
Old 11-13-2007, 08:31 PM   #36
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 08:12 PM
^Great post...
BVS is offline  
Old 11-14-2007, 03:03 PM   #37
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


I think Bono has been framing this issue incorrectly. Whenever he comments on it, it sounds like poor people, by virtue of being poor, oppressed and powerless, are prone to terrorism and indoctrination. In fact, the statistics don't support that with respect to suicide bombers (except in the West Bank, where you do see substantial numbers of very desperate, very poor men acting in retaliation). What poverty does, however, is breed a certain kind of resentment which then predisposes the population at large to be supportive of terrorism, to at least some extent. So while poor people may not necessarily be contributing their sons in large numbers, their passive support makes the flourishing of these groups possible.
West Bank seemed to be the other way, with suicide bombers being on the whole from better of families.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...528062,00.html
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-14-2007, 04:01 PM   #38
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 09:12 PM
No, they by and large do, but in the West Bank you also see examples of retaliatory suicide bombing from the lower classes (I hesitate to even suggest there is an upper class there), whereas typically suicide bombers employed in the west, like the UK and the 9/11 group didn't have anyone who was not at least middle class, as far as I can recall.
anitram is offline  
Old 11-14-2007, 08:02 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 09:12 PM
One might argue that those that aren't abjectly poor have the luxury of having spare time and mental energy to worked into a frenzy over this or that societal wrong?
maycocksean is offline  
Old 11-14-2007, 11:40 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 07:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Jeannieco


Yes, he is a self professed pacifist.

I have heard him say that in several interviews.
Bono on Larry King in 2002:

BONO: It's just -- you know, you understand when a child is born and you're watching the child born and you have all of these feelings as a man of -- you know, for me, I've kind of -- I just felt completely -- I was reduced to, you know, to nothing. And I didn't know what to do, you know, somebody that I love is in pain, and who do I have to slap, you know? And you know, that's the doctor and the nurses. They're on your side. And so, as a male, I think it's very confusing.

But then you understand from the feelings that you have for your children, you understand actually why wars are fought. You understand all of these terrible things. It brings -- it's not all wine and roses, you know. It's -- there's an acrid and bitter part, I think, to -- for me, when you realize that you -- you know, and I'm a -- I was a complete and utter pacifist, until I had children.....
__________________

U2DMfan is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×