Hat tip to Jihad Watch and the Blaze
Here is what Nation of Islam leader, the vile and odious Louis Farrakhan, told an audience on August 13 about American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and why the Ft Hood shooter killed his fellow soldiers. This is nothing less than vile and disgusting.
A real patriot, eh? It makes me want to puke.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I've never been a fan of Farrakhan, but if you want what you just wrote to have credibility, you should speak to what he said during the first two minutes of the video.
Deny, if you can credibly do so, that 70 percent of women serving in the military are raped, and 90 percent in combat assignments,
or,
Respond to it,
and then, you could still point out why Nidal Hassan is nonetheless a terrorist, although perhaps it is true that debriefing men returning from these conflicts threw off his balance. I didn't hear Farrakhan call the shooter a patriot.
It is true that soldiers are trained to kill -- something they would be arrested for in civilian life. Soldiers for the most part go into the armed forces either because they need a job, or because they have an affinity for military life.
Maybe one reason for restoring some kind of universal service is so people of a wider variety of viewpoints will bring them to bear on military life, and, people in all walks of civilian life will know how it feels to be in the military.
I have a similar thought about the police. Every member of the ACLU should serve five years on a local police force. It would be good for both the police (that kind of work frankly doesn't attract ACLU types), and the ACLU, which doesn't experience what it is like to be on the beat.
at the time the ft hood psychiatrist went on a killing rampage, he only had one patient for the total year because he was such a mental mess himself. Aside, the ft hood killer psychiatrist earned $90,000/year tax dollars for seeing one patient. Is there no end to this?
Siarlys,
I think you better go back and watch the video again.
A classic cop-out Gary. Millions for evasion, but not one cent for sober analysis.
Anonymous has provided a good example of how to provide data to make a point. Accepting the data as true, it undermines Farrakhan's entire speech. It would seem that Farrakhan made up something he deemed plausible, rather than doing his homework. This does not surprise me.
"It would seem that Farrakhan made up something he deemed plausible, rather than doing his homework. This does not surprise me."
Excuse me Siarlys, that was my point, not yours. You challenged me to refute what Farrakhan said while misquoting Farrakhan himself.
Which side do you want to argue for here?
Gary, are you sure you are qualified to teach at a university level?
I am pointing out the minimum requirements of factual integrity for ANY argument.
First, I pointed out that your commentary IGNORED most of what Farrakhan ALLEGED to be true.
Then you made a remark that did nothing to correct the omission.
Next, Anonymous came in and offered a factual assertion that, if true, would accomplish what I expected you would attempt.
I observed that, IF TRUE, the factual assertion he offered WOULD do exactly what you, without any rigor at all, had sort of tried to do.
If you could improve the quality of your reasoning, and the way you express it in writing, you'd get a lot less flak.
Post a Comment