Did My Car Join Al Qaeda Rhetorical Analysis
DISCUSSION BOARD THREAD #1
“Did My Car Join Al-Qaeda?”
Woody Hochswender, a former reporter and fashion columnist for the New York Times ; his article "Did My Car Join Al-Qaeda?" is very persuasive and he clarifies his viewpoints with awesome facts concerning the S.U.V. use and his supported argument provides a logic appeal. Hochswender shares some keen considerations concerning the utilization of S.U. V’s. in the Middle East and the rest of the global communities. Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, an Iranian-American, intentionally, as he confessed, hit people with a sport utility vehicle on the campus of the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill to "avenge the deaths of Muslims worldwide" and to "punish" the United States government. …show more content…
While no one was killed in the vehicle-ramming attack, nine people were injured (none seriously) .
Since that time, we have heard countless reports of S.U.V.
usage for terrorism acts within the globally communities. Hochswender communicates a solid and strong argument to support his views and he states, “the well-publicized notion that S.U.V’s are actually unsafe, based on their propensity to roll over, does not take into account personal responsibility”. I don’t concur with the fact that S.U.V’s is usage of terrorism acts. He asks a valid question and he says, “I drive a large, four-wheel drive vehicle. Does that mean I’m a bad person?”. Its senseless thinking to believe or perhaps assess that S.U.Vs owners support terrorism. New York Times reports that Huffington has received gainful returns from her assessment of S.U.V’s owners plays a part in terrorism acts .
Hochswender argument brings great clarity to the absurd views of Huffington and he expresses some validate matters on being S.U.Vs as wells as other vehicles. He shares some interesting data and he states, “The S.U.V bashers’ argument also falls apart on macro-economic grounds”. In the writings of Huffington and the supporters of S.U.Vs and terrorism views, there is not much concrete evidences nor solid facts provided in their argument. Mike Wallace once put it in such an eloquent way and he said, “If there's anything that's important to a reporter, it is integrity. It is credibility”
.
Hochswender communicates with his readers and share what advantages of being an owner of S.U.Vs, for example, traveling to go to work, transport children to school and to sporting events and considerably more. Also, he expresses his views on the safety and cost efficiency of the gas as well. In conclusion, Hochswender presents a solid ethos appeal and he validates his supportive views based on being S.U.Vs owner. I concur with Hochswender argument and he definitely assures his readers that the ratchet thinking that all S.U.Vs owners are providing aid and financial assistance to Al-Qaeda is absurb.
Zechariah reminds us in Zechariah 8:16 a wonderful truth and he states, “These are the things that you shall do; Speak the truth to one another; render in your gates judgments that are true and works for peace” .
“Did My Car Join Al-Qaeda?”
Woody Hochswender, a former reporter and fashion columnist for the New York Times ; his article "Did My Car Join Al-Qaeda?" is very persuasive and he clarifies his viewpoints with awesome facts concerning the S.U.V. use and his supported argument provides a logic appeal. Hochswender shares some keen considerations concerning the utilization of S.U. V’s. in the Middle East and the rest of the global communities. Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, an Iranian-American, intentionally, as he confessed, hit people with a sport utility vehicle on the campus of the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill to "avenge the deaths of Muslims worldwide" and to "punish" the United States government. …show more content…
While no one was killed in the vehicle-ramming attack, nine people were injured (none seriously) .
Since that time, we have heard countless reports of S.U.V.
usage for terrorism acts within the globally communities. Hochswender communicates a solid and strong argument to support his views and he states, “the well-publicized notion that S.U.V’s are actually unsafe, based on their propensity to roll over, does not take into account personal responsibility”. I don’t concur with the fact that S.U.V’s is usage of terrorism acts. He asks a valid question and he says, “I drive a large, four-wheel drive vehicle. Does that mean I’m a bad person?”. Its senseless thinking to believe or perhaps assess that S.U.Vs owners support terrorism. New York Times reports that Huffington has received gainful returns from her assessment of S.U.V’s owners plays a part in terrorism acts .
Hochswender argument brings great clarity to the absurd views of Huffington and he expresses some validate matters on being S.U.Vs as wells as other vehicles. He shares some interesting data and he states, “The S.U.V bashers’ argument also falls apart on macro-economic grounds”. In the writings of Huffington and the supporters of S.U.Vs and terrorism views, there is not much concrete evidences nor solid facts provided in their argument. Mike Wallace once put it in such an eloquent way and he said, “If there's anything that's important to a reporter, it is integrity. It is credibility”
.
Hochswender communicates with his readers and share what advantages of being an owner of S.U.Vs, for example, traveling to go to work, transport children to school and to sporting events and considerably more. Also, he expresses his views on the safety and cost efficiency of the gas as well. In conclusion, Hochswender presents a solid ethos appeal and he validates his supportive views based on being S.U.Vs owner. I concur with Hochswender argument and he definitely assures his readers that the ratchet thinking that all S.U.Vs owners are providing aid and financial assistance to Al-Qaeda is absurb.
Zechariah reminds us in Zechariah 8:16 a wonderful truth and he states, “These are the things that you shall do; Speak the truth to one another; render in your gates judgments that are true and works for peace” .