Tweet
He is, and I'm sorry if we have some fans here. He contradicts himself all the time, too much. Of course it happens with everyone, but he does it in a way that should be debated.
I watched the video power and terror, it was his ramblings OK.. it had a good point of people seeing that the post 911 rhetorics was dangerous in a way that other countries would use that when they want to adopt things into their own politics and use of power (non-military). Well, duh, that was the whole pretext thing most people around the world were concerned of, but the contradiction comes when he says in other interviews, how he sees, that as the poor people, third world etc. adn the 911 strike, that the victims of that event are not comparable to victims in those countries, so there's perspective for that.
What I'd like to ask is first he agrees that there are different discourses existing and what happens in the US and in some other remote country, well, they have different understanding of the world around us, so if he draws the connection between the 911 victims and other victims, wouldn't that be a jump from another discourse to another, and quite literally from fundamental Islam into the heart of capitalism? Sure. So as as perversed dialogue has been established between these discourses, he has to agree, that it's two different worlds colliding, so why is it not taken into account with the comparison of victims?
Ok, so if the West has oppressed some of the nations with their power, mostly these days by using their economic advantage, that's the direct connection he sees. For such a praised figure, I wonder how that very trivialized argument with no further backing can go without a challenge?
If these hubs of different realities defined by culture, economy, history, politics, religion etc. collide, it's not happening inside one segment as he says, or then again he agrees there are these hubs that are colliding. So which one is it? He has very black and white world in his head, so in this very fundamental question, he should reach the black and white position. It's like choosing what ever framework supports your own thoughts, motivated by feelings and other kinds of stuff, but if you can't come together and stick with one long enough to have a consistent argument on an important question he likes to go over today a lot, I have to wonder why.
I'd also like to know if he truly thinks it was a cry from the oppressed, or an act of terrorism. He would agree it was an act of terrorism, but that there were reasons why thsi terrorism was created, and it comes back to the whole west is powerful thing.
If we look at terrorist groups, the main ones, I don't think they're about equality and happiness for all. They most likely see the west as a corrupted region that does not live up to the whole Islam thing as they'd see fit, and as such, are the enemy. The corruption must be fought. So it's very fundamental mindset, now I can't see how that is the war cry of the oppressed, of the people.
So I have to come back to the first question, does he see this happening inside one segment, or a collision between the two, and what the cause and effect strings he is still attaching into things. It simply is flawed until he explains it or choose the other one.
And if he chooses not to, well.. then it's nothing but populistic crap. Oh wait, but that might be true!
That's just one of the very basic settings left in the air. Then there's about a million other arguments he makes that needs to be cleared out, which he doesn't do. THat's because he doesn't function in a framework. By that I mean that he can leave things unsaid or basically not waste time giving back up for claims, because there's the framework so we can see if it fits the picture or not. Then again, that's a difficult thing to come up with, so he just goes with random arguments, and simply does not back them up and I don't mean like facts from statistics or papers or anything like that, just simple .. solid and consisting flow of arguments where the arguments themselves are aligned together, that would be nice. But no.
I watched the video power and terror, it was his ramblings OK.. it had a good point of people seeing that the post 911 rhetorics was dangerous in a way that other countries would use that when they want to adopt things into their own politics and use of power (non-military). Well, duh, that was the whole pretext thing most people around the world were concerned of, but the contradiction comes when he says in other interviews, how he sees, that as the poor people, third world etc. adn the 911 strike, that the victims of that event are not comparable to victims in those countries, so there's perspective for that.
What I'd like to ask is first he agrees that there are different discourses existing and what happens in the US and in some other remote country, well, they have different understanding of the world around us, so if he draws the connection between the 911 victims and other victims, wouldn't that be a jump from another discourse to another, and quite literally from fundamental Islam into the heart of capitalism? Sure. So as as perversed dialogue has been established between these discourses, he has to agree, that it's two different worlds colliding, so why is it not taken into account with the comparison of victims?
Ok, so if the West has oppressed some of the nations with their power, mostly these days by using their economic advantage, that's the direct connection he sees. For such a praised figure, I wonder how that very trivialized argument with no further backing can go without a challenge?
If these hubs of different realities defined by culture, economy, history, politics, religion etc. collide, it's not happening inside one segment as he says, or then again he agrees there are these hubs that are colliding. So which one is it? He has very black and white world in his head, so in this very fundamental question, he should reach the black and white position. It's like choosing what ever framework supports your own thoughts, motivated by feelings and other kinds of stuff, but if you can't come together and stick with one long enough to have a consistent argument on an important question he likes to go over today a lot, I have to wonder why.
I'd also like to know if he truly thinks it was a cry from the oppressed, or an act of terrorism. He would agree it was an act of terrorism, but that there were reasons why thsi terrorism was created, and it comes back to the whole west is powerful thing.
If we look at terrorist groups, the main ones, I don't think they're about equality and happiness for all. They most likely see the west as a corrupted region that does not live up to the whole Islam thing as they'd see fit, and as such, are the enemy. The corruption must be fought. So it's very fundamental mindset, now I can't see how that is the war cry of the oppressed, of the people.
So I have to come back to the first question, does he see this happening inside one segment, or a collision between the two, and what the cause and effect strings he is still attaching into things. It simply is flawed until he explains it or choose the other one.
And if he chooses not to, well.. then it's nothing but populistic crap. Oh wait, but that might be true!
That's just one of the very basic settings left in the air. Then there's about a million other arguments he makes that needs to be cleared out, which he doesn't do. THat's because he doesn't function in a framework. By that I mean that he can leave things unsaid or basically not waste time giving back up for claims, because there's the framework so we can see if it fits the picture or not. Then again, that's a difficult thing to come up with, so he just goes with random arguments, and simply does not back them up and I don't mean like facts from statistics or papers or anything like that, just simple .. solid and consisting flow of arguments where the arguments themselves are aligned together, that would be nice. But no.
.
Comment