# Louis Farrakhan



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

Perhaps the political forum isn't the place to discuss this. But on reflection, maybe so.
Louis Farrakhan is the leader of the Nation of Islam. The Nation of Islam professes NOT to be Muslim, yet they use the Q'uran as their primary guiding text, as most Christians use the Bible. Although he is knowledgeable of, and quotes the Bible and Torah as well, when he seeks to make a point.
I do not see the Muslim religion as being evil. I see the evil that is being perpetrated upon the world as being served up by terrorists who are, for the most part Muslim, led by men who have distorted the words of the Q'uran to their own evil purpose.
Minister Farrakhan is a prolific speech maker. His discourses are available on the net, and in print. He is exceedingly articulate, very intelligent and when speaking holds his audience like no other speaker I have seen. He has been characterised as being everything from evil personified, to the last best hope for the peace loving peoples of the world.
A man such as this has influence in all areas of our society, certainly in politics, although he does not seek political office himself, preferring to continue his career as a man of God. 
For those of you who know him, who he is, and what he professes, please give some input. I am continuing my research into this very interesting, if a little bit scary (to me at least) man to try and satisfy my own curiosity. Is he a threat to our country? Is the Nation of Islam the peaceful, morally superior religion it professes to be, or a terrorist threat in the making? Burl


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

He has been keeping a lower profile than in the past. Recreating his image I think. Go back a few years and you will find he was extremely radical. He spoke words about people that I will not even print on here. Maybe someone else can remember, but I think he was the one that said "kill all the *******".


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

If you were old enough to live through the 60's, his name was on TV every night for awhile. Nation of Islam was and is a sect of Islam in the US and was considered very radical for that time. Of the names that come to mind that you may know, Lew Alcindor (now Kareem Abdul Jabbar) and Cassius Clay (Muhammed Ali) were two more notable converts to Islam. There actually was a huge schism in the Nation of Islam between the radical side and the other side which holds more closely to traditional Islam. Not Sh'ia versus Sunni, but radical versus passive.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Burly, you are wise.


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

Burley,
I just now was able to read your post on Louis Farrakhan. As Plainsman stated go back and check out some of Louis Farrakhan past speeches. He preached violence towards whites, much like the black panthers did in the 1960's. I watched one of his speeches on C-span where called a white video camera operator, who was covering the speech, a "Cracker." He then forced the white man to leave the speech, with the crowd cheering and hollering. It was the most raciest thing I had ever witnessed on t.v. Also keep in mind that Hitler was also very articulate. Being articulate can be a good thing if used right. It can also be abused and in many cases is. I hope Farrakhan has changed his tune, but he will never be taken seriously because of his past.


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

Mr. F is a racist! uke:


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Farrakhan is the worse racist I've ever seen! 
Turds will always gather at the sewer(Farrakan is a crap magnet)!
When all the stink clears, he's just a racist and a terrorist.


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

I suppose that was not PC (politicaly correct) of me to say, but as most know I call a spade a spade!


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

My intention, as some may have surmised, is to bring the focus on terrorism/threats, to the nearby, the local if you will. Not that I feel we should ignore international terrorism, but I also feel that there are many threats worth watching on our own shores. Not the least of which is Louis Farrakhan. Burl


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Yep, agree with Burly on this one. Not only Farrakhan, but the McVeigh's, the Kaszinski's, the KKK and the other right wing nuts out there that are proven terrorists.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Yep, agree with Burly on this one. Not only Farrakhan, but the McVeigh's, the Kaszinski's, the KKK and the other right wing nuts out there that are proven terrorists.


Way to go ........................... what better way to bring people together than to make a statement like that.

Oh, isn't it spelled Kaczynski? And by the way, for your info he was a very far left radical, not right as you wish him to be.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Just pointing out that racists, terrorists, radicals, are not limited to any one race, color, religion or geographic region. They come from all parts of the political and social spectrum and there are as many right wing nuts as left wing nuts. Not discounting the previous posts on this topic, I have met as many KKK racists as Nation of Islam racists. When you consider the time when nation of islam was created, lynching blacks was still occuring in the south.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> and there are as many right wing nuts as left wing nuts.


Maybe, maybe not. Personally I think you were simply taking a cheap shot at the right. Maybe you might care to explain this. The National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism maintains a terrorism database. According to its files, as the Baltimore Sun reported, fully 22 of the 25 terrorist attacks inside the United States since 2003 are believed to have been the work of environmental extremists. You do understand the environmental extremists they mention are the very far, far left nuts over there don't you. Just a little correct info I'm sure you want to know about..... :lol:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> and the other right wing nuts out there that are pr


oven terrorists.

I also had taken that statement to mean all nuts were right wing. I see Farrakhan as left, McVeigh as right, Kaszinski left, and the KKK who knows. The animal rights people are definitely left, and the right has it's skeletons also.

Yes I also agree that there are those that need watching, that is what the patriot act is for.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Really? I thought the patriot act was to restrict our rights on the basis of terrorism even though it barely gets a damn thing done. Silly me.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Well see there, you learned something this evening.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> Well see there, you learned something this evening.


He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security- Benjamin Franklin


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Oh, I need not give up my liberty. Perhaps your just a little to sensitive. I want the government watching some people. I think we listed some we would want watched. Let me add to that list. I hope they watch people who don't care about American soldiers dying. They should park on their doorstep.

You see I trust the government with Bush in charge. I wouldn't trust a government with a leader that wants to take away my firearms. You think the conservatives want to take our liberties. The liberal answer to everything is more laws, but they never want to restrict the guilty only the innocent.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

My previous statement was intended to point out I believe there are many possible terroists on the right as the left. As to the comment about trusting Bush, I heartily disagree. I personally feel, both at work, and in my other occupations and hobbies, that the current administration has dramatically increased the number and complexity of regulations that reduced my civil liberties when compared with previous administrations including Reagan, Bush I and Clinton.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Indsport said


> dramatically increased the number and complexity of regulations that reduced my civil liberties when compared with previous administrations including Reagan, Bush I and Clinton.


Really??I haven't really noticed any real difference in my life other than the hassles of air travel, which if there was'nt the ridiculous Left wing "OH NO!!! we can't profile" knee jerk reaction :eyeroll: and the federalizing of the screeners ( nothing more than a gimme to the federal unions) even air travel wouldn't be so bad.

Why don't you tell us how you're so severely restricted, I would like some specifics. I hear this from the left but I just don't see it. Maybe I'm missing something.


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

While Benjamin Franklin was a wise man, and a well respected leader in forming our Democratic government, his situation then was far different from what we are facing now. Although many of us, myself included, would like to retain, even return to the simple life we once knew, I am afraid it is not possible. We have no choice but to endure those trade off's which will provide us with security. Yes, big brother is watching us, as much, or even more so than Orwell could ever have imagined. As invasive and (occasionally) restrictive as it may seem, we simply will have to put up with some of the inconvenience for the sake of safety. I was not always as complacent in my views. I am old enough to have been a hippy, though not one of the original's. Knowing that "the man" has got his nose under my tent irks me some but what is the alternative? We can no longer (if indeed we ever could) depend upon the good nature and concern of our fellow man to keep us from harm. More's the pity. But as informed and concerned citizens, there is nothing wrong with us searching for new ways and trying to refine the methods which are already in place to enhance our personal and national security. I believe that assigning the blame for the present security/terrorist threat we have in our country to the Democrat's or Republicans, the left, right, liberal's or conservative's is an exercise in futility. Whether we like it or not, "ever vigilant" is going to have to become a way of life for us. Those in law enforcement, or who have served our country on hostile shores know what "condition yellow" is. The rest of the country needs to know as well and practice it as a way of life. I wish it were not so. I am truly afraid that things are going to get worse before getting better. Complacency breeds victim's. I refuse to be a victim, as should you all. Burl


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Okay, There have been a slew of new regulations in my hobby (over 50 new ones). It includes such idiotic regulations by the Consumer product safety commission on sale of aluminum powder, used in a variety of products including paint, because it is also used in the production of fire crackers and other explosives. CPSC now wants to regulate sale of sulfur that I use in my garden each year for potato blight, because it can be used in explosives (or making black powder). There were a slew of other widely used industrial chemicals that CPSC wanted to regulate, all in the name of "national security" until industry stepped in and slapped them down. CPSC tried to issue regulations on black powder making it illegal to sell more than a certain quantity (I believe it was 4 ounces), until BATFE and some logical senators blocked their stupidity about 2 years ago. They came within inches of affecting all gun owners, all in the name of "national security" Did you hear about it? probably not, because it was coming out of the CPSC rather than BATFE and never made the federal register. 
And guess what, the CPSC appointees are now predominately from Bush II. This is just one small example of stealth attacks by the current administration that will indirectly affect all you gun lovers that think Bush is protecting your interests of the second amendment. Bush will let you have all the guns you want, but by limiting access to powder, what will you do?


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

If you are truly concerned, you will lobby, you will write your senator's and congressmen to try and change legislation that you feel is either unfair or truly unnecessary. I am not implying that all things Bush are automatically correct, or that you should sit idly by and wait for the government to make all your decisions for you. What I said, is that sitting on your pillow and thinking that not changing anything will keep you and your country safe is no different than an ostritch sticking his head in the sand. Notifying the public of legislation which will effect their lives is all important. Board such as this are extremely useful in keeping us informed. Yes, your opinion and input is important, But trying to hold a party line, and doing nothing more than assigning blame, accomplishes nothing. Change what you can, learn to live with what you can not.
The world is changing, and your ability to change, react and adapt is going to make the difference between surviving or simply waiting for the blowing sand to cover you up. I can not, and do not pretend to have the solution to all our problems. In truth, I don't think our government does either. But I do know this. War is coming to our shores, the likes of which we have never seen. We need to be aware, and as ready as we can be. Change, adapt, react. Survive. Burl


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Yes, I do belong to multiple organizations that lobby, I write either state or federal representatives about once a month on one matter or another, and definitely do not sit on my hands. And yet, when I talk with individuals I have known for a long time (over 30 years) in agencies that issue federal regulations, their overwhelming common response is that the current administration through their political appointees, has been overzealous in creating new regulations which defy common sense (see the sulfur regulation in my previous post) or discarded or altered regulations that have worked successfully for years (e.g regulation of chemicals). If a regulation can be changed to help big business or multinationals, the attitude is it will be done. If a new regulation has an onerous effect on some individuals or small business, the response is "who cares".


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I reload all the time Shotshells and haven't noticed anything prohibitive. I bought sevearl cannisters of powder the other day with absolutely no problem. I agree the gov has to be watched but I just dont see the BIG invasion of rights argument.

If they weren't looking at those substances and some idiot "peaceful Muslim" purchased a bunch of black powder and used it to blow up a school bus everyone on the left would be *****in that Bush wasn't doing his job. It just seems to me that they can't win. Common sense ( which I'll admit is scarce among gov workers) has to be used and we live in a time that the threat of terrorism is real. I'm the last person to want the gov to be looking over my shoulder but I consider it my patriot duty to put up with some inconvienence to avoid a catastrophe. Lets face it the reality is that many chemicals can probably be used to make bombs. I'm glad they are looking at them.


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

There is not and never will be any way to keep everyone happy. In our part of the state, a great deal of anhydrous ammonia is used in farming. More restrictive regulations have been implemented, placing the onus upon the end users, i.e. the farmers. Now, nobody is saying that the farmers are making bombs, or methamphetamine, or aiding and abetting those who would. The simple fact is that anhydrous ammonia is one of those chemicals that can be, and is used for illicit purposes. Putting a padlock on an anhydrous nurse tank won't keep all those who would steal it away, but it will deter a significant portion. Time is precious in the farm industry, as in others, yet we require that those who use anhydrous are well versed in it's handling, safety and security issues. Please, let us not turn this into a farm issue thread. I cite this only as an example that we all have to be prepared to make some sacrifices for the well being of our community, state, country. I like the discourse we are having here. Thanks to all the participants for staying focused. Right now, I'm going bass fishing. The temp is rising and for once, the wind has let down a bit. There are presently no restrictions on 3/8 oz spinnerbaits. Burl


----------

