A Theological Perspective of the Clash of Civilizations Essay

Despite the several terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania, America remained strong and united. In the speech “Address to the Nation on the Terrorist Attacks”, George W. Bush, addresses the terrorist attack of September eleventh to let the citizens know they can overcome a tragic and mournful incident by remaining unified and a powerful country. The primary audience are the citizens and the family members of the ones who had died or were involved in the incident. The secondary audience are the terrorists to let them know American’s are not scared and will stand together against them. Bush uses ethos, pathos, and figurative language to encourage the citizens to be stronger, united, and feel safe.

Tuesday morning, September 11 of 2001, referred to as a day to remember, the twin towers were attacked by terrorists in a hijacked plane. Thousands of lives were lost and it was a day that brought great sorrow to America. George W. Bush, the president at that time, addressed his speech to America as a nation, giving them hope that the events that took place earlier that day would not shake them but that they would come back stronger. In this essay I will evaluate Bush’s formal 9/11 Address to the Nation and discuss the speaker’s appeals to pathos, logos and ethos to convey his message that America can stand tall as one.

Former President George W. Bush’s speech, “Bullhorn”, was given through a megaphone on top the rumble of 220 floors of a horrific event. On the day of September 11, 2001, an Islamic group, called Al-Qaeda, hijacked four American passenger airliners to carry out suicide attacks against targets across the United States. The potential targets included: the twin towers, the Pentagon and the White House. Three of the four hijacked airliners accomplished their goal as the lives of 3,000 innocent civilians were taken. A cloud of grief and mourn covered the country as they experience the worst tragedy since 1941, the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Soon after the attack on September 14th, a ray of hope appeared as President Bush took the stage. Throughout his speech, three rhetorical devices were shown are: ethos, logos, and pathos. Bush used these three devices to connect with the audiences’ emotions, appeal to the audiences’ ethics, and appeal to the logical side of the audience additionally, all while creating a sufficient speech to the comfort the country.

“None of us will ever forget this day, yet we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world.” That was one of George W. Bush’s many emotional yet strong sayings in his speech of the tragic 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York city. His goal of unifying, making the country feel bonded together, was achieved through vivid and organized word choice. He chose these words to connect with the people of america's emotions and feelings, while also displaying authority and logical sense that terrorism is a threat to the world.

When discussing 9/11, the author writes about Post-9/11 America seemed determined: “Never Again.” Despite important differences, genocide and terrorism share one important feature, which is that both parget civilian populations. This led the author to ask, “To what extend is the mind-set of the perpetrators revealed by the way they frame their victims culturally (Mamdani, 11)?” The debate on this question turns around the relationship between cultural and political identity and in the context of 9/11, between religious fundamentalism and political terrorism. The ideas the author raised in the Good Muslim, Bad Muslim section, stuck out to me the most. Mamdani explained that President Bush moved to distinguish between “good Muslims” and “bad Muslims.” From the “bad Muslims” point of view, they were obviously responsible for terrorism and at the same time, Bush seemed to assure Americans that “good Muslims” were anxious to clear their names and consciences of this horrible crime and would undoubtable support “us” in a war against “them.” This doesn’t hide the central message of the discourse that unless proved to be “good,” every Muslim was presumed to be “bad.” All Muslims were now obligated to prove their credentials by joining in a war against “bad Muslims (Mamdani, 15).” This part of the reading really got me thinking about

Christianity and Acceptance of Conventional and Nuclear War Conventional war and nuclear war are different from others, but some Christians believe that both can take place while other Christians find nuclear war unacceptable but Conventional war is, I will explore this in detail. Some Christians think Conventional and nuclear war is acceptable because they are similar to each other in certain ways, although conventional wars do not consist of use of nuclear weapons while nuclear wars do, both kinds of wars can cause death of innocent people, both are more of government's decision rather than the citizen's, and they do not always solve the problem. An example of the similar effects of both

When the twin towers were destroyed in New York City by the terrorist group led by Osama Bin Laden, a Country filled with panic, sadness, and anger was left behind. Thousands of innocent civilians were killed, and the families of the fallen suffered greatly. People demanded answers, and wanted justice. People also felt unsafe, and were unaware if it was reasonable to expect another attack. President George Walker Bush prepares a speech for congress to discuss the events that took place, and the plans that will take place because of these events. The objectives of the speech Bush was trying to accomplish were informing the nation what had happed on September 11th, he then noted that it was not Muslins to be blamed for the attack, the challenges that lie ahead, and our plan for the “War on Terror.” The President uses the canons of rhetoric to execute a speech that met his audience’s needs.

On September 11th, 2001, a terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York and on the Pentagon in Washington D.C. captured the world’s attention. Almost three thousand innocent lives were lost, leaving the event a tragic and eternal piece of U.S. history. Leaders from all reaches of the world offered their sympathies. George W. Bush, the president of the United States at the time, delivered a strong, defiant response to the terrorist attacks, appealing to the patriotic masses of his country. England’s Prime Minister Tony Blair offered a more subdued, mournful response. While Bush championed for revenge, Blair focused on hope and morality. Both leaders utilized different rhetorical devices to make their respected points.

Samuel Huntington’s controversial article “The Clash of Civilizations?” was first published in Foreign Affairs in 1993 and was subsequently turned into a book in 1996 titled The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. As this paper will show Huntington’s work can be seen as a product of the post-Cold War context it was written in. Huntington’s article takes a new perspective on the new world order and outlines a different way a thinking about how future world conflicts will unfold. Since the initial journal article was published in 1993 there has been a great deal of response from academics and also from Huntington himself. A majority of the responses come in the form of critiques, with the authors offering their own insight into how the post-Cold War World will operate. Although the validity of Huntington’s arguments have been questioned, it did create a great deal of controversy in the academic world. As Huntington explained in the preface of his 1996 book, the original article published in Foreign Affairs created more discussion in three years than any other article published in the journal since the 1940s.

Recently, and especially since the 1990s, a popular conception of the world is that the age of empires and superpowers is waning, rapidly being replaced by a kind of global community made up of interdependent states and deeply connected through economics and technology. In this view, the United States' role following the Cold War is one of almost benign preeminence, in which it seeks to spread liberal democracy through economic globalization, and, failing that, military intervention. Even then, however, this military intervention is framed as part of a globalizing process, rather than any kind of unilateral imperialist endeavor. However, examining the history of the United States since nearly its inception all the way up to today reveals that nothing could be farther from the truth. The United States is an empire in the truest sense of the word, expanding its control through military force with seemingly no end other than its own enrichment. The United States' misadventure in Iraq puts the lie to the notion that US economic and military action is geared towards any kind of global progression towards liberal democracy, and forces one to re-imagine the United States' role in contemporary global affairs by recognizing the way in which it has attempted to secure its own hegemony by crippling any potential threats.

Politics and religion in the world of today aren’t subjects that generally go hand in hand in our own society. This was not always the case however; in Europe the two were synonymous up until relatively recently, (recently meant in the loosest sense of the word,) and are still closely tied in foreign parts of the world, the most obvious example being the Middle East. The duos intimate relationship was exemplified during the late sixteenth century, extending into the seventeenth century, during a series of wars which would later on come to be called “the wars of religion.” But is this title completely appropriate? For wars claiming to be centered on religion, they seem to carry an awfully heavy load of political baggage. In fact, one

Contemporary international relations is a complex field. Understanding events and attempting to make sense of them can be a daunting task. There are, however, tools available, which can assist in providing clarity to these complex issues. The first of these tools is historic knowledge. Without historic background of an issue, it is nearly impossible to understand the events driving that issue in modern times. A second tool, the one which will be the focus of this paper, is international relations theory. Theory can be defined as “a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action,” (Merriam-Webster) and can be used “in many cases as a basis of prediction.” (Mingst 56) There are three major theories which we

Samuel Huntington has made famous his thesis "the clash of civilizations", which was developed in his article in Foreign Affairs in 1993 and in the book that followed, in which the author expanded his thesis and reaffirmed the validity of his theory after the success and controversy that followed the publication of his article. In fact, the “civilizational” approach of conflicts today is now intrinsically linked to a comprehensive theory of international relations, which Samuel Huntington has developed by giving it an important value and a dominant paradigm

The end of the Cold War was not just a politically significant event but also an important intellectual milestone, where academics, researchers and intellectuals examined the consequences that its end would concur. Fukuyama’s The End of History and Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations are two of such explorations but contrast each other significantly. Fukuyama predicts a future of peace, or minimal conflict, amidst the spread of Western liberal democracy, a system of government he believes has been actualized as perfect in Hegel’s realm of consciousness whereas Huntington argues that conflict will stem from civilizational differences, owing to the rise in civilization-consciousness. I will start my essay by briefly summarizing the main arguments of each article, after which I will attempt to critique each one before drawing comparisons between the two.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of religion is as follows: “the belief in a god or in a group of gods, an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods, or an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group” (Merriam-Webster.) My personal definition of religion is that it is a set of beliefs and practices that generally pertain the worship of one or more than one spiritual beings or representations of a spiritual power. Religion can be personal belief or an organization or group of people who have similar beliefs and values. There are many different types of religions in the world and have been since the