Les Jones

Not exactly.

OK, so he was making a literary reference to "Dulce Et Decorum Est" with the "sweet and honorable" bit. How does that mitigate the cheerleading for terrorists in the interview?

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."

I don't consider that cheerleading. I consider it seeing things from a different perspective.

I know this may sound nuts, but if another nation were to invade this country, kill our civilians and create chaos you'd want to be considered brave for protecting yourself and what you stand for, too.

It's a different perspective all right. It's the perspective of Al Qaeda.

If someone invaded my country and my country was a brutal military dictatorship I'd help them, which is what most of the Iraqis have done. The insurgents are the former ruling Sunni minority and outside fighters from Iran, Syria, and elsewhere.

And the U.S. isn't killing civilians except by accident. As opposed to the terrorists, who are intentionally killing civilians. Do you see why Vonnegut's views are so abhorrent?