AOC isn’t 22. So where did he get experience to run such a department at 22 with no relevant job? No leadership, no military, no geopolical, nothing. It’s like me leading an agency about anime. My knowledge of anime ends at the point that I know it exists. At 22 you can only get experience with terrorism by being military. Even if you’re a rigorous and studious person, there’s no way you can understand terrorism unless you’ve dealt with it personally.
For example, most of the suicide bomb attacks in Iraq weren’t psychotic religious extremists. Most of them were pressured by the actual terrorists. They would kidnap or threaten their families to make them do it. Others were poor, destitute individuals who were promised that upon completion of their “mission” that their family would be rewarded with a large payout. This isn’t uncommon even in the West. It gets underreported because in the West it usually manifests in a different way. My own grandpa repeatedly expressed concerns of not leaving his family enough before he took his own life and he tested rockets for NASA.so it’s not exclusive to the Middle East to hold your family above yourself.
That level of understanding of the motive simply doesn’t exist at 22, especially if you’ve never left the states. If you want to stop something, literally anything, you have to understand WHY it’s happening. I don’t wrench on my engine when the brakes are locked up, because I understand how the machine works. Terrorism is far more complicated than a vehicle, and it’s an absolute requirement to have experience in it to understand it. It isn’t the age, it’s the experience.
I’mma quote from the post you responded to, maybe you can help me see what I’m missing.
…I guess my point is that gardening and entry-level-grocery are completely fine and expected experience for a 22 year old; but that no 22 year old could have the experience to do well as a leader in terror prevention. So, there’s a distinction between criticizing the absence of experience (justified), vs criticizing someone for having actual experience in an unrelated field (bullshit).
You say your point and their point are different, and I’m not seeing the differences? From my end, it looks like you’re saying the same thing, just with different words.
I’m just confused because somebody said “it’s not important he was a gardner, it’s important that he’s unqualified”, and you jumped in with a “I disagree, its important he’s not qualified” and I’m just lost.
Like, are you saying its important to focus on his lack of qualifications, or are you saying you disagree with that?
AOC isn’t 22. So where did he get experience to run such a department at 22 with no relevant job? No leadership, no military, no geopolical, nothing. It’s like me leading an agency about anime. My knowledge of anime ends at the point that I know it exists. At 22 you can only get experience with terrorism by being military. Even if you’re a rigorous and studious person, there’s no way you can understand terrorism unless you’ve dealt with it personally.
For example, most of the suicide bomb attacks in Iraq weren’t psychotic religious extremists. Most of them were pressured by the actual terrorists. They would kidnap or threaten their families to make them do it. Others were poor, destitute individuals who were promised that upon completion of their “mission” that their family would be rewarded with a large payout. This isn’t uncommon even in the West. It gets underreported because in the West it usually manifests in a different way. My own grandpa repeatedly expressed concerns of not leaving his family enough before he took his own life and he tested rockets for NASA.so it’s not exclusive to the Middle East to hold your family above yourself.
That level of understanding of the motive simply doesn’t exist at 22, especially if you’ve never left the states. If you want to stop something, literally anything, you have to understand WHY it’s happening. I don’t wrench on my engine when the brakes are locked up, because I understand how the machine works. Terrorism is far more complicated than a vehicle, and it’s an absolute requirement to have experience in it to understand it. It isn’t the age, it’s the experience.
I’m confused, this reads like an argument, but you’re making the same point.
I’m not, AOC had some life behind her when she was elected. This dude doesn’t. And wasn’t elected.
I’mma quote from the post you responded to, maybe you can help me see what I’m missing.
Where does your argument contradict that?
I guess I am failing to understand your question with what I said. Can you word it another way?
You say your point and their point are different, and I’m not seeing the differences? From my end, it looks like you’re saying the same thing, just with different words.
Well I guess at some point the most important point is that she was elected? Beyond that, I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
I’m just confused because somebody said “it’s not important he was a gardner, it’s important that he’s unqualified”, and you jumped in with a “I disagree, its important he’s not qualified” and I’m just lost.
Like, are you saying its important to focus on his lack of qualifications, or are you saying you disagree with that?
Yeah totally, it’s his lack of qualifications. Because of his age also disqualifies him from experience.