Marcus Luttrell On The Islamic Extremists

He reaches out to the American people trying to convince them that he is an American and what it stands for, religion and freedom of speech. He tries to relate to them personally. Mitt Romney says that he will “put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.” He appeals to people by saying that he won’t put no one religion over the other and that the province of the church would end where the affairs of the nation

He encourages people to stay away from entering war because he feels there is no need to put yourself into that type of intensity and stress.

He formally addresses the people of the nation by saying “your tranquility... your peace… your prosperity” all in an effort to create a sense of ownership that can be felt by the people. Repetition combined with encouraging diction gives the American people a sense of pride to have a nation run “by the people and for the people,” just as the constitution states. He continues to expand upon these democratic beliefs in the later part of the speech. He compares the United States to surrounding nations by focusing on how opposing nations are “tied together by similar governments” and how their governments are “inauspicious to liberty.” In this he looks to convey to the American people that they are fortunate to live in a free nation, and not be citizens of a monarchy like that of the nation they freed themselves

In his speech he talks about how America needs to act on the things it promised to all citizens. He says that America is lacking dignity and they are not fighting for all to have freedom. He wants America to right wrongs, serve men, and do justice.

Bush begins by addressing the calamities that took place on September 11, 2001. Just like us, Bush is an American. He is establishing himself as one of us, which in turn makes his message far more powerful, as well as influential. With this speech, it is almost as if Bush is threatening the terrorists, but warning them at the same time. He is warning them that they are gonna regret what they did. Bush is influencing both Americans and terrorists with this speech.

Towards the end of his speech he goes to say “ we few, we happy few, we band of brothers” meaning what we have is really what we got. Together as a team as brothers, we will be united to fight this battle out as one. Us together as one can make this fight better than us as individuals. We fight as brothers, as one, the few that we have we will fight as one. He makes it known that we are one if I fight it is as a united family and we will fight with honor due to the fact we’re really all we have right now.

basically expresses his beliefs on freedom of religion and how we the people should have free religion without persecution.

Once he arrived in Iraq, he learned about the views the liberal part of the U.S.A. shared. Marcus was made aware of the backlash many liberals expressed indirectly to military members due to their want to protect their country through fighting. The media portrayed military as if they “were somehow in the wrong, brutal killers, bullying other countries; that we who put our lives on the line for our nation at the behest of our government should somehow be charged with murder for shooting our enemy"(233). In other words, the government had a twisted of ways of understanding what the SEALS were fighting for, according to Marcus. The freedom of America and protecting the country did not include killing innocent bystanders and invading foreign lands, according to the liberals. Once the goat herders stumbled upon the SEALS Marcus knew the repercussions he and the team was going to face if they killed them, for their own protection. The potential death sentence or the tearing apart of the Navy SEAL reputation. He discusses in the memoir the threat of the sheep herders posed if they were to report the crew to the enemy. He rants about how the Iraqi enemies know how the media system works (197). The Iraqis know that once they have been captured or tortured by the “American” enemy, Arab broadcasters “would pick it up, and it would be relayed to the U.S.A., where the liberal media would joyfully accuse all of us of being murderers or barbarians or something. Those terrorist organizations laugh at the U.S. media, and they know exactly how to use the system against

He puts it into somewhat of a question, “somewhere I read….” which shows how he distances himself from the Constitution, the law of the land that has granted him and all American citizens rights, to show how out of grasp those rights actually are. It also reminds white America all the rights our founding fathers had granted for ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS. Kind of like “yeah uh remember the thing called the bill of rights yup still applies to all of us”. A prominent part of the speech is when he began to say “Somewhere I read the right to assembly, somewhere I read the right of speech, Somewhere I read….etc.” He goes on to explain each part of the 1st amendment, his voice growing louder, stronger, powerful to focus on the fact that white America praises this Constitution yet is abolishing its basic purpose.He revealed how much they have dishonored the constitution rather than respecting it like they think they are. Another powerful part is when he starts speaking of countries such as Russia and China which have never “promised” certain rights and how this behavior could be seen acceptable there because well those countries never lied and tricked you into thinking you are granted rights. However, a country like America who was built on the backs of Africans, who promised rights to citizens, was shunning away the fact that THEY ARE obligated to preserve these human rights because, well, they wrote it on

Walter Laqueur’s book, “The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction”, is empowering readers with the entire spectrum of terrorism. The reasons behind terrorism are not easy to understand, but Laqueur goes into great detail to try and bring the reader to an understanding of what the terrorist is thinking in order to justify the means to the end.

Zarqawi believed that the Koran and Shariah should be implemented in its purist form without fail and to its fullest extent. Also in Zarqawi’s view those who deviated even the slightest from the Koran and Shariah should proclaimed apostates and be given the appropriate punishment, usually death. For example, Zarqawi viewed Shiites practices as denying the Koran’s original perfection, thus they are marked for death. This is reflected in IS’s current to policy to purify the world via execution and other means those who deviate from the Koran and Shariah. Zarqawi’s belief was that an Islamic caliphate was an achievable event within his life time whereas Osama bin Laden believed an Islamic caliphate would not be achieved with his life time.

In his article “Terrorism,” Michael Walzer describes terrorism as the indiscriminate murder of innocent people. He goes on to explain that terrorists have the objective of destroying the morale of a nation and instilling fear within a society by not targeting a specific group of people, but rather, targeting the population as a whole and killing “random” people. Walzer and many like-minded philosophers share the view that terrorism is wrong and is not justified under any circumstances; thus rendering it akin to murder. The preceding view is referred to as the “the dominant view,” as labeled by Lionel K. McPherson, because it is common to a great deal of people – many of who are not philosophers. McPherson attempts to

He speaks in a tone representing all the people of America (e.g. I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It’s practiced freely by many millions of Americans and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends.)

Terrorism is used around the world to create fear and influence the public on political views (Siegel, 489). There are four views of terrorism including the psychological view, socialization view, ideological view, and the alienation view. A religious terrorist would most likely fit under the ideological view. In this view the terrorist feels the need to change a wrong opinion and believes that, because they are sacrificing themselves for something they believe so strongly in, it justifies the damage and harm done to innocent people (Siegel, 490). They use terror to create fear in anyone who opposes them and attract followers to their religion. In short, terrorism is widely used for political

My understanding of extremism is that it’s a term used to describe the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived political center of a society; or otherwise claimed to violate common moral standards. In democratic societies, individuals or groups which advocate that democracy should be replaced with some kind of authoritarian regime are usually branded extremists.