Rhetorical Analysis Of Bjorn Steark's Living With Terrorism

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.

Imagine what it’s like to be a member of a nation who’s just been victimized in attacks that took the lives of around 3000 innocent people. The Attacks of September 11, 2001 were a series of four acts of terrorism directed towards the United States. The whole nation was present in a state of utter shock and emotional disarray. Besides, many of their loved ones were taken from them, and many others were threatened. If the Taliban terrorists were willing to commit attacks such as the ones of September 11th, 2001, then what made everyone else immune? In the “Address to Joint Session of Congress Following 9/11 Attacks,” George W. Bush substantially utilizes strong pathos, in addition to use of moderate amounts of ethos, logos, and a very urgent and resentful tone to persuade the American people that he will take the measures necessary to ensure that the terrorists are brought to justice. In fact, he was well aware that the people were fearful regarding their future, and he took full advantage of the emotional nature of the situation to win over the support of the people at the time. After 9/11 and his speeches, his approval rating shot up to an all time high; he had managed to intoxicate the people in the fashion which he handled the circumstances, and convinced the American people that they were in good hands.

The momentous tragedy that occurred on September 11th, 2001 has been engraved into the memories of United States citizens. What began as an ordinary day quickly evolved into an tragedy no one could have predicted: thousands of lives had been taken and countless more devastated and ruined by the acts of terror. Although unpredicted, the horrific and frightening news affected all. The four planes individually plummeted into their targets—two crashed into the Twin Towers, another struck the Pentagon, and the final hurtled into an empty field—eliciting a wave of panic throughout the nation. The jarring images of commercial airplanes hijacked by members of the terrorist group Al-Qaida managed to instill a fear. As the terrified country anxiously fretted about the future, President George W. Bush delivered a speech to address the nation in order to soothe the tensions and worry. In George W. Bush’s “9/11 Address to the Nation,” the terrorist attack orchestrated against the U.S. is addressed with rhetorical devices such as parallel structure, imagery, and various appeals in order to inspire and heal the country.

The president appeals primarily to pathos by listing ordinary people who fell victim to “deadly terrorist attacks.” He draws upon the audience’s feelings of anger and sorrow by including “moms and dads, friends and neighbors” among the murdered. President Bush details the efforts of different parts of the government to guarantee safety and stability. He guarantees his audience that everything possible is being done to find the terrorists who were responsible for the attacks. Also, the president shows pathos by saying this “Tonight, I ask for your prayers for all those who grieve, for the children whose worlds have been shattered, for all whose sense of safety and security has been threatened.”

“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 Bush addressed the nation, he had to assure the American people of their country’s strength, which would undoubtedly triumph through this unthinkable misfortune. George W. Bush states, “These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat. But they have failed. Our country is strong (Eidenmuller).” This shows how Bush is trying to create an emotional connection to the audience by instilling in Americans that our country must remain unified and strong during this time of terror. Bush also states, “These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve (Eidenmuller). This statement testifies that our country cannot be broken, and our country will prevail. About one-in-five Americans cite the country’s response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, as the time in their lives when they felt most proud of their country (Gramlich). This indicates just how powerful our country can be if everyone works together. The terrorist attacks on the United States will forever be burned into the memories of Americans. That being the case, Bush’s attempt at creating an emotional connection to the audience was successful because he brought the country together with words of strength.

Foreign and domestic policies are not linear, rather the policies are connected in a circle, with each policy reinforcing the values of another. Domestic American terrorism in the prison and detention systems and governmental reforms are influenced by the mobilization and ethnocentrism abroad. The militarization internationally is justified by the domestic handling of the same cultural issues within the United State borders. The United States has strangely used a near Catch-22 to handle dilemmas. The United States has allowed perspective to become reality, whether with oneself or regarding issues abroad, specifically in the Middle East. Terrorism is the use or threat of fear for political or economical gain. An internal characteristic of terrorism is how dependent it is of perspective, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. To understand “terrorism,” a focus must be applied to the history, what drove an organization to commit such acts. Respectively, the Middle East has been a hotbed for the key word “terrorism,” especially because of 9/11. Subsequently, Muslims have been stigmatized by the United States as terrorists. The consequences spawned because of 9/11 require a look to the past to understand the present.

Following the 9/11 attack in America, Bush declares Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda as the enemy. Bush clearly states that the 9/11 attacks were an initiative action of war and coins the term, “War on Terror” which has developed and is also adaptable with other terms, such as “War on Drugs”. His speech also educates his people about Islamic terrorism alongside their practices and mentality. Bush seems extremely patriotic and expresses great anger and almost thinks for his citizens by saying, “our grief has turned to anger”. Nonetheless, Bush feels strongly about defending America’s freedom and won’t back down to this violence. Furthermore, Bush’s speech was extremely effective as the crowd was very dense, actively involved through cheers and claps. This however, may have induces a mob mentality as an individual action of support such as a cheer could easily ripple through the crowd and suddenly everyone

The world has become a scary place where evil runs rampant and bombings and shooting are becoming more common. The act of terrorism puts fear into the average person, and American essayist and social critic H.L. Mencken observes this by writing, “The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe.” That concession is certainly true, because in a contemporary society where terrorism reigns American citizens are willing to give up their freedom and rights for the feeling of security.

In Steven Brill's Are We Any Safer, an article which appeared in the September 2016 issue of The Atlantic, the rhetor attempts to educate the audience on the issue of post 9/11 security, and whether or not it has improved safety. The writer responds to this exigence and makes rhetorical response effective by using ethos, pathos, and logos to appeal to the audience. The audience in which Brill is addressing is the American people. Americans were affected the most by 9/11, so they are the ones who will be attracted to this response. In the article Brill also expertly balances resources and constraints, a key part to any rhetorical response.

Many Americans do not understand the implication and role of terrorism in the modern world. Terrorism is not a something that can be measured or held in hand. It is a theoretical idea that has many different meanings to many different people (Aziz, 2014). U.S. Citizens in general need to understand the full effect of modern terrorism. Blinded by media coverage and dramatized by slow-motion video replay of terrorist attacks,

Societies will always have problems that cause some sort of reaction from individuals who believe that their social stability is being endangered. There have been a number of moral panics which have captivated society in terror and more often than not, owing to unfamiliarity. This essay will discuss the perception of a moral panic and will look at the case of the September 11th Terrorist attack against the United States of America, which triggered a colossal conflict of morality within modern day society. This essay will also analyse terrorism as a perceived deviance, the role of the moral entrepreneur and folk devil, in order to develop a level of understanding to the causes of this particular moral panic and its effects on society.

One can scarcely turn on the television, or the radio, or open up a web browser without the mention of Islamic terrorism or unrest around the world. Though the United States and the rest of the world may not be engaged in a protracted religious war, for radical Muslim fundamentalist they are. Bernard Lewis brings to light possible reasons for the issues facing the world dealing with Islamic terrorism. The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror explains these issues in historical context as well as how some of the actions professed in the name of Islam and claim to

Chomsky takes a turn that is someone conservative and attempts to take a neutral position and evaluates some truths that he sees. He takes us through the reason and definitions of terrorism. He uses examples such Nazi Germany and says that terror is more subjective in the sense that when unprovoked, war is terror on that entity such as England trying to push back Germany. Chomsky then takes us through the idea that 9/11 has changed the world. He refutes this idea and says that the only reason that this was a big change was because it happened to America, the center of the world. He gives an example here by showing how the U.S. government interfered in Guatemala by not doing anything about the deaths that were being taken place there as we supplied El Salvador with weapons and ammunition. (pg 192) Chomsky again brings up the idea of state-supported terrorism and gives example after example of how this was played out in Central and Southern America. (Pg193-194) Chomsky jumps into the just war theory here and says that statements about just war theory are made only by empirical forces only justifying war. During this period of time, most of

The term “War on Terror” alone has created a psychological phenomenon that struck fear in the minds of many Americans. The Bush Administration elevated those three words to a national mantra that had impacted the American democracy destructively. It had impacted the American psyche as well as the United States’ standing in the world. In an article by Zibigniew Brzezinski, he explains, “Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us.”