IntruderLS1
Active Member
I'll listen to it again tomorrow. I promise.
Later man. Have a good night.
Later man. Have a good night.
Al Qaeda Raid
- Thread starter alleycat
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
-
25Replies
-
596Views
-
0Participant count
-
Participants list
IntruderLS1
Active Member
Okay, I went through it again, and unfortunately I'm back to my original assessment.
He does speak of the fine difference between action and non-action. Writing a letter vs. pulling a trigger, but he is also very clear that he has chosen the trigger as his method of communication. He has chosen the ideals and the way of life in such a manner that would have him identify the terrorists in Guantanamo as his brothers.
That's just stupid IMHO. Uneducated anger. A problem not too uncommon these days it would seem.
He does speak of the fine difference between action and non-action. Writing a letter vs. pulling a trigger, but he is also very clear that he has chosen the trigger as his method of communication. He has chosen the ideals and the way of life in such a manner that would have him identify the terrorists in Guantanamo as his brothers.
That's just stupid IMHO. Uneducated anger. A problem not too uncommon these days it would seem.
All Else Failed
Well-Known Member
I didn't hear one reference to him choosing violence over protesting, nor did I hear him reference anything that would mark him a "terrorist". He calls the men in Guantanamo his "brothers" because all Muslim men consider each other brothers, whether they agree with each other or not.
IntruderLS1
Active Member
lol This in an insanely stupid thing for us to argue about. I find it so interesting how two people can look at the exact same thing, and come away with such extremely differences in views on it.
To me, the author / performer tells the audience that he is not dangerous, but is danger, and is not angry, but anger etc... He never once references himself sitting at a table writing a letter of concern to his government, but he repeatedly makes reference to himself using violence to make his voice heard.
Like you said, he does point out the sometimes very fine line that can separate the two, but at no point does he claim to be on the more peaceful side of the coin. He simply references its existence.
To me, the author / performer tells the audience that he is not dangerous, but is danger, and is not angry, but anger etc... He never once references himself sitting at a table writing a letter of concern to his government, but he repeatedly makes reference to himself using violence to make his voice heard.
Like you said, he does point out the sometimes very fine line that can separate the two, but at no point does he claim to be on the more peaceful side of the coin. He simply references its existence.
All Else Failed
Well-Known Member
Yeah this is pretty stupid to be arguing about. Lets just leave it at poetry is subjective.
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members