在評論俄烏戰爭時，Bono 暴露出他的短視與無知，而在Gaza 事件中，他更顯示出他的虛偽與雙標。Bono 就是個沽名釣譽的投機份子。
When commenting on the Russia-Ukraine war, Bono exposed his short-sightedness and ignorance, and during the Gaza incident, he further revealed his hypocrisy and double standards. Bono is nothing more than a self-serving opportunist seeking fame.
Roger Waters與Bono同為國際知名的音樂人，但在政治立場與世界觀上卻天差地遠。Waters以其深厚的歷史素養和對國際局勢的冷靜分析著稱，敢於挑戰西方霸權，長期支持巴勒斯坦人民，揭露美國及以色列的軍事與殖民政策。他在烏克蘭、加薩等議題上立場一貫，展現出少數藝人所擁有的理性與道德勇氣。 相對地，Bono雖高舉人道主義旗幟，卻常被批評為情感主導、立場搖擺。他對美國戰爭與以色列暴行多保持沉默，甚至重複西方媒體的敘事，忽視受壓迫者的聲音。他的人道關懷淪為政治表演，成為西方權力的文化裝飾品。 Waters是一位有骨氣的知識分子，而Bono則是體制的代言人。在真相與政治正確之間，兩人做出了截然不同的選擇。
Roger Waters and Bono are both internationally renowned musicians, but their political positions and worldviews could not be more different.
Waters is known for his profound historical insight and calm, analytical approach to global affairs. He boldly challenges Western hegemony, has long supported the Palestinian people, and openly criticizes the military and colonial policies of both the United States and Israel. On issues such as Ukraine and Gaza, his stance has remained consistent, demonstrating a rare combination of reason and moral courage among artists.
In contrast, Bono, while waving the flag of humanitarianism, is often criticized for being emotionally driven and politically inconsistent. He has remained largely silent on U.S. wars and Israeli atrocities, and often repeats Western media narratives, ignoring the voices of the oppressed. His humanitarian image has become a form of political performance—more cultural decoration for Western power than genuine resistance.
Waters stands as a principled intellectual, while Bono serves as a spokesperson for the establishment. Between truth and political correctness, the two have made profoundly different choices.
Roger Waters與Bono：學識素養與政治立場的對比 ——從中東到烏克蘭的全球視野剖析
在當今這個資訊氾濫、輿論操控層出不窮的時代，名人不僅是文化的代言人，更是政治與價值觀的傳播者。Roger Waters與Bono，作為搖滾史上兩位重量級人物，其在音樂以外的影響力不容忽視。這兩人雖然都活躍於政治與公共領域，卻展現出兩條完全不同的思想軌跡與道德判準。
一方面，Roger Waters以其對歷史、國際關係、權力結構的深刻剖析，成為當代少數真正擁有學識與獨立判斷力的公共知識分子；另一方面，Bono則更多扮演情感型的人道主義倡議者角色，時常陷入意識形態的迷霧與政治雙重標準之中。
Roger Waters：以史為鑑，洞悉全球權力結構的批判者
Roger Waters 的政治立場源於他對歷史與現實的深度研究。他不是憑空喊口號，而是建立在系統性的觀察與對結構性暴力的長期反思之上。無論是對美國干涉主義的批判、對以色列政府政策的譴責，還是對軍事工業複合體的揭露，他始終堅持一個原則：反對壓迫，不論壓迫者是誰。
Waters 在個人作品如《The Wall》、《Amused to Death》中，早已揭露媒體如何操控群眾、政治如何製造恐懼來合法化暴力。他的創作超越音樂層次，更像是一場場哲學與政治的思辨。他不以流行話術取寵，而是針對根源性問題提出批判——這種深度，是極少數藝人能夠達到的。
Waters對中東問題、以色列與巴勒斯坦衝突等問題的公開立場，表現出他對國際關係的精準判斷。他敢於挑戰西方國家的主流觀點，無論是對美國對外政策的批評，還是對以色列的政府行為進行的強烈反對，都顯示出他在道德和政治上有著一條清晰的邏輯線。這種立場不僅建立在理性和歷史的基礎上，更體現了他對人類命運共同體的深切關懷。
Bono：意識形態的俘虜與西方敘事的延伸
與之相比，Bono的政治介入更多是出於一種情感衝動與道德姿態。他的關懷雖然貌似真誠，但卻缺乏對地緣政治深層次結構的理解。從非洲的貧困援助到氣候議題，Bono時常以“全球正義”的姿態出現，但這種正義往往是被西方語境塑造過的“正義”——即把問題簡化為受害者與施害者的二元對立，而忽略了西方本身在這些問題中的角色與責任。
更令人質疑的是，Bono經常與各國政治菁英保持友好關係——無論是小布希、奧巴馬，甚至與大企業合作的行為，無不使人懷疑其“人道主義”的真誠性。當一個“抗爭者”與權力那麼靠近，他的立場自然會受到質疑。
(Bono，U2的主唱，則更注重情感與意識形態的表達，且其政治立場常被批評為雙標和虛偽。他自詡為人道主義者，並且常常參與全球政治議題的討論，特別是關於貧困、環境問題與人權等領域。然而，他的立場常常充滿矛盾，尤其在西方政治主導的背景下。他提出的“公平貿易”和“發展援助”等理念，看似高尚，但在實際執行層面，卻忽略了西方自身對這些問題的根本責任。
Bono的政治言論經常流於情感訴求，缺乏足夠的深度與理性分析。他的意識形態掛帥，未能對西方國家的行為作出實質性的批判，反而在某些情況下默認並支持這些國家的不公行為。例如，他對美國在伊拉克的戰爭行為並未提出足夠的反對，甚至在某些場合對美國政府的外交政策持某種程度的支持態度，這使得他的政治立場顯得極為矛盾。
Bono的雙重標準和對某些政府行為的默許，讓人難以忽視他所表達的“人道主義”是否僅僅是一種政治姿態。他的“援助行動”是否真正能夠幫助到那些受苦的人，還是僅僅為西方的政治利益服務，這一點值得深思。)
Bono的政治立場則顯得極為矛盾且虛偽。儘管他聲稱自己是全球人道主義的倡導者，Bono卻在以色列對巴勒斯坦的暴行面前選擇閉嘴或轉移視線，甚至公開為以色列政府辯護。U2樂團成員屢次將加薩的局勢定性為10月7日的事件，並反覆重複以色列政府的宣傳，完全忽視了巴勒斯坦人民所遭受的種族滅絕、強迫流離失所以及大規模飢荒。這種雙標行為，不僅讓Bono的言論變得空洞無力，更揭示了他對真相的漠視，以及對西方權力結構的依附。
對烏克蘭戰爭的解讀：理性對決宣傳
Roger Waters：歷史視角下的系統性分析
Roger Waters 在烏克蘭衝突爆發後，成為少數敢於跳脫西方主流敘事框架的藝人。他多次指出，這場戰爭不能僅僅看作是“俄羅斯侵略烏克蘭”，而應從更廣泛的歷史脈絡中審視——北約東擴、2014年烏克蘭政變（美國參與其中）、以及頓巴斯地區的內戰，都是衝突的關鍵背景。
在一次接受BBC HARDtalk訪談時，Waters直指主持人以西方立場進行偏頗提問，並指出：「你只關心俄羅斯軍隊的行為，卻不關心北約在俄羅斯邊界的軍事部署。這是雙重標準。」整段訪談中，他不僅沒有被帶節奏，反而將主持人逼得語塞，展現出強大的歷史素養與思辨能力。
他對戰爭的觀點明確：反對一切形式的侵略與帝國主義，不論來自俄羅斯、美國，還是北約。他主張透過外交解決衝突，並譴責媒體簡化戰爭為“邪惡 vs 正義”的二元戲碼。
Bono：照本宣科的西方人道主義敘事
相較之下，Bono對烏克蘭事件的立場完全與西方主流一致。他訪問基輔，發表聲援演唱會，稱“這場戰爭是民主與專制的對決”，並完全照搬北約與美國的敘事。表面上看是“挺自由”、“反侵略”，但缺乏任何對衝突歷史、背後權力角力的分析。
Bono在此事件中，再次展現出他一貫的“選擇性人道主義”——當美國對伊拉克、利比亞、敘利亞發動戰爭時，他不是沉默，就是輕描淡寫；但當俄羅斯捲入衝突時，他卻高聲疾呼制裁與聲援。
這種雙標，不僅削弱了其道德立場的正當性，也讓人質疑他是否只是西方意識形態的傳聲筒。
西方的自我迷失與道德破產
Waters所揭示的，不僅是對單一事件的分析，而是一整套對西方霸權的深刻批判。他警告，當西方國家繼續以“人道主義”之名輸出軍事干預，卻無視自身製造的衝突與混亂，最終將在全球失去道德制高點。
Bono所代表的，是一種表面關懷、實質維護現狀的西方中產菁英意識形態。這種立場在今日多極化世界中，越來越顯得蒼白無力，甚至令人反感。
結語：兩種世界觀的交鋒
Roger Waters與Bono的差異，從根本上來說，是知識與宣傳、獨立思辨與意識形態的對立。Waters代表的是一種真正的反體制思維，他不畏懼得罪強權，始終堅持以歷史與理性為依據來做出判斷。而Bono則代表一種“安全的激進主義”，在不觸碰核心權力結構的前提下進行表演式的“反抗”。
在一個被資訊操控與輿論綁架的時代，我們比任何時候都更需要像Roger Waters這樣的聲音。他提醒我們：真正的正義，不是站在權力一方喊口號，而是敢於質疑“我們這一邊”可能的錯誤。
Roger Waters vs. Bono: A Contrast in Intellectual Depth and Political Stance — From the Middle East to Ukraine
In today's world of information saturation and media manipulation, celebrities are no longer just icons of music or entertainment—they have become voices of political influence and ideological discourse. Among the most prominent figures in this regard are Roger Waters and Bono. Though both have spoken out on global issues, their approaches, motivations, and intellectual foundations could not be more different.
Roger Waters, co-founder of Pink Floyd, stands out as a rare artist who combines artistic brilliance with intellectual rigor and historical awareness. In contrast, Bono, frontman of U2, often represents a more emotionally driven, ideologically inclined form of humanitarianism—one that frequently aligns with mainstream Western narratives, even at the cost of coherence and moral consistency.
Roger Waters: A Historian’s Mind in a Musician’s Voice
Roger Waters has long distinguished himself not just through music but through serious political critique grounded in historical analysis. His works, such as The Wall and Amused to Death, reflect deep engagement with themes such as Cold War tensions, nuclear proliferation, media manipulation, and the corruption of political power. These are not vague moral complaints—they are structured insights into how systems of power function and oppress.
Waters speaks with authority because he does his homework. His stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, American imperialism, and military-industrial expansion are based on facts, history, and systemic understanding. He has never hesitated to speak truth to power—even when it means being ostracized or slandered. His criticism of Western foreign policy, particularly its hypocrisy and double standards, cuts to the heart of geopolitical discourse.
Bono: Emotion Over Analysis, Humanitarianism Without Self-Critique
Bono, in contrast, embraces a form of celebrity humanitarianism that often lacks depth and structural critique. His advocacy for causes such as poverty reduction, environmental sustainability, and global justice may appear noble on the surface, but they often rely on simplified narratives that ignore the West’s own complicity in creating these problems.
Bono’s connections with political elites—ranging from George W. Bush to Barack Obama and major corporate figures—have raised legitimate questions about his role. Is he a challenger of the system, or merely its cultural ambassador?
While his public persona leans heavily on moral passion, Bono often fails to apply consistent standards. He is quick to condemn injustices in the Global South but reluctant to critique the Western institutions and governments that perpetuate them. His version of humanitarianism too often aligns with Western soft power, making it look less like resistance and more like managed dissent.
Middle East and Israel-Palestine: Truth-Telling vs. Hypocrisy
Roger Waters: Consistent Moral Clarity
One of the most telling contrasts between Waters and Bono appears in their positions on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Roger Waters has been a fierce and consistent advocate for Palestinian rights, often at great personal and professional cost. He openly condemns Israel’s occupation, apartheid-like policies, and repeated military assaults on Gaza, framing these issues not as isolated incidents but as part of a systematic structure of colonial oppression.
Waters has repeatedly criticized U.S. and European complicity in enabling Israeli violence and has supported the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. His stance is grounded in international law, human rights principles, and a deep moral concern for the oppressed. Rather than echoing state-approved narratives, Waters challenges them—even when it is unpopular.
He is one of the few Western artists who understands that speaking out against injustice in Palestine is not an act of partisanship but a moral necessity. His clarity on this issue reinforces the intellectual and ethical consistency that defines his broader worldview.
Bono: Silence, Deflection, and Propaganda
Bono, by contrast, has shown a troubling unwillingness to criticize Israel, despite claiming to be a global humanitarian. His public statements have either sidestepped the reality of Israeli aggression or uncritically echoed Israeli government talking points. U2 members have on several occasions framed the crisis in Gaza solely through the lens of the October 7th Hamas attacks, ignoring decades of Israeli occupation, settler violence, mass displacement, and collective punishment inflicted on Palestinians.
Not only has Bono refused to acknowledge the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza as a man-made siege, but he has also implicitly justified Israel’s military response, contributing to the broader Western narrative that dehumanizes Palestinians.
This selective empathy undermines his credibility as a voice for global justice. By remaining silent—or worse, compliant—in the face of war crimes and ethnic cleansing, Bono reveals a deeper loyalty to Western power structures than to the truth or the oppressed. His moral posture is exposed as a performance, stripped of substance by its glaring double standards.
Ukraine: A Case Study in Narrative vs. Nuance
Roger Waters: Contextual Thinking and Historical Accountability
In the case of the Ukraine war, Roger Waters again stood out as one of the few public figures willing to challenge the Western narrative. He has argued consistently that the war is not a black-and-white case of Russian aggression, but the culmination of decades of provocation, especially through NATO expansion, the 2014 U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine, and the ignored suffering in the Donbas region.
In a highly publicized interview with BBC HARDtalk, Waters dismantled the host’s simplistic questions with a firm grip on historical facts. When accused of “taking Russia’s side,” Waters replied: “You’re only interested in condemning Russian tanks. What about the NATO tanks at Russia’s doorstep?” The host was visibly flustered—a rare moment of live media being challenged on its own assumptions.
Waters' message is consistent: he opposes all forms of imperialism, whether American, Russian, or otherwise. He advocates for diplomacy, critical thinking, and historical responsibility—not emotional hysteria or war propaganda.
Bono: Repeating Western Talking Points
Bono’s response to the Ukraine crisis has been predictable and thoroughly in line with Western political orthodoxy. He traveled to Kyiv, performed solidarity concerts, and made sweeping statements like “this is a war between democracy and tyranny”—language straight from a NATO press briefing.
There was no mention of NATO’s encroachment, no concern for the post-2014 Ukrainian government’s treatment of Eastern Ukrainians, and no suggestion that Western powers bear any responsibility for escalating tensions. His messaging was emotionally compelling but intellectually hollow, once again revealing his alignment with the very power structures that Waters critiques.
Worse still, Bono’s silence on Western-led invasions—such as Iraq, Libya, and Syria—highlights a stark double standard. He champions humanitarianism when it’s politically safe and ignores it when it challenges Western hegemony.
The West’s Path to Moral Bankruptcy
Waters’ analysis points to a deeper, systemic crisis in the West. As long as Western powers continue to cloak military interventions in the language of human rights, and suppress dissenting voices like his under accusations of “sympathizing with the enemy,” they risk losing global legitimacy.
The moral collapse of the Western liberal order is not just about hypocrisy—it is about the refusal to engage in self-reflection. By contrast, Waters stands as a voice of integrity, willing to confront even his own cultural and political surroundings. Bono, in contrast, functions more like a brand ambassador for Western benevolence, sanitizing its darker motives through feel-good language and photo ops.
Conclusion: Two Worldviews, Two Futures
The contrast between Roger Waters and Bono is not merely about politics—it’s about worldview, epistemology, and intellectual honesty.
Waters represents a tradition of critical resistance, grounded in historical knowledge, moral consistency, and a commitment to the truth, even when it's inconvenient. Bono, on the other hand, often exemplifies the commodification of dissent, where humanitarian language masks geopolitical complicity.
Whether in Ukraine, Gaza, or elsewhere, the question is not simply who you support—it is how deeply you understand, and whether you are willing to stand for justice even when it means standing alone.
History will likely judge the two men very differently.
留言功能已依作者設定調整顯示方式