The Implications Of The Bush Speech - Rooting Out Terrorism

President Bush, shares his view on the matter throughout this speech. Bush’s purpose is to try and help Americans not panic during such a terrifying situation that has changed American history. Since Bush understands what Americans or people in general the world must be feeling, he is able to address the matter in a calm and collected way. In “Bush’s 9/11 speech,” the author, President George Bush, uses various rhetorical devices to reinforce his position on the 9/11 attack.

President Bush’s 9/11 speech was addressed because of a series terrorist attacks that took place on September 11, 2001; the attacks took the lives of thousands of innocent people. As stated by Bush, the U.S.

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.

First looking at President Bush’s speech, the overall situation being shared throughout this piece of work is that the incident of 9/11 was a devastating tragedy and we should always remember it as a reason for why we should continue to stay strong and surpass the limit. Although Bush never did say all this, but he reflected the idea in we should never feel at complete sorrow whenever we remember this incident, but instead, feel the need to improve and advance to prevent this act of terrorism. It is never a wise choice to sorrow over a problem and leave it untouched. Ever since the incident of 9/11, the United States of America has excelled and advanced ever since in order to prevent future terror-influenced acts.

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 purpose of this speech was, overall, to address the tragic acts of terrorism. President Bush accomplishes this in an informative and effective manner through his elegiac tone throughout the speech. This mournful way of writing gives a respectful and empathetic feeling to the address. This is incredibly important, as many people were feeling grief, loss, fear, and heartache at the time. Another purpose for the speech is to call the American people to action. President Bush, through his use of imperative statements, successfully rallies his audience to action. After describing some upcoming changes to the government, he said “These measures are essential. But the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows” (“George Bush Speech”). This imperative statement gets the audience feeling determined to do their part to destroy terrorism. Soon after, he said, “I have a message for our military: Be ready. I’ve called the Armed Forces to alert, and there is a reason. The hour is coming when America will act, and you will make us proud” (“George Bush Speech”). This specifically calls the military to action, which is a critical aspect of the speech. President Bush also uses this speech as an opportunity to thank people who made a difference in the tragic event, saying “I thank the Congress for its leadership at such an important time”, “I thank the world for its outpouring of support”, and, “…I thank you for your

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.

In the article “Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong?”, Lionel K. McPherson criticizes the dominant view that terrorism is absolutely and unconditionally wrong. He argues terrorism is not distinctively wrong compared to conventional war. However, I claim that terrorism is necessarily wrong.

Terrorism is a major threat to national and global security that encompasses more than violent means by foreigners and Islamic extremists. This is mainly because most of the recent terror acts in America have been carried out by single-issue individuals and special-interest extremists with the intention of protecting the environment and animals based on their beliefs. Actually, terrorism is described as the illegitimate use of extreme violence and force with the intention of coercing a

As paradoxical as it may seem (to most), it proves difficult to condemn terrorism and have a consistent, non-hypocritical way to judge it. Most definitions of terrorism lack the applicability of all instances of terrorism, there seems to be borderline exceptions which fall within the gray area of such definitions. Stephen Nathanson, in an effort to establish what makes terrorism wrong, bases one of his main arguments on that terrorists are thought to be dreadful because they intentionally seek innocent deaths, while others who kill innocents do so unintentionally (15). In this essay, I shall argue that Nathanson’s definition of innocence, which is mostly used as the core gauge of why terrorism is morally unjustifiable, is badly restricting in that it excludes the cases of political assassinations. Consequently, this insinuates that when using his definition of innocence, attacks on political figureheads may be morally justifiable if it is done for a just cause. To support this thesis I will argue that, although, political assassinations do not involve the killing of innocents they are, in most cases, morally unjustifiable contrary to what Nathanson’s argument insinuates. Moreover, I will consider how Nathanson may reply to my contention by objecting that political figureheads cannot be innocent given their political position and will address his rebuttal by demonstrating that within the context of society most of us are not innocent.

Since the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration has been calling every citizens and every nations to support his Middle East policy. Nonetheless, the U.S. has been involved in the middle-east struggle for more than half of the century, wars were waged and citizens were killed. Yet, political struggles and ideological conflicts are now worse than they were under Clinton’s presidency. As “President’s Address to the Nation” is a speech asking everybody to support the troops to keep fighting in Iraq, I, as an audience, am not persuaded at all because of his illogical fallacy in the arguments. In this essay, I will analyze how and what are the illogical fallacies he uses in the

They elucidate that terrorism is a “premeditated, politically motivated, violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups of clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience,” (National Institute of Justice).

On September 11, 2001, the United States of America was hit with the worst terrorist attack in history. An Islamic group called al-Qaeda hijacked four airliners. They flew two of them into the towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, one into the Pentagon in Washington D.C., and one into a field in Pennsylvania. When the Twin Towers fell, the footage was aired live on television and America was in shock. After an act of terrorism this tragic, the current President at the time, George W. Bush, had to address the nation. On this same day, President Bush gave a speech from the Oval Office in Washington D.C. The American people were afraid of more terrorist attacks. When Bush gave his speech, he had two main agendas: give America

When concerning moral dispositions, the ongoing debate remains: are people inherently good or evil? Through various readings, many heated discussions, and several informing documentaries and movies, one thing has remained clear—that anyone can be a terrorist, and anyone can be an altruist. There is no biological makeup that urges terrorists to act with violence nor is there a secret mantra altruists recite daily that motivates them to act with goodness. Life does not provide a clear and distinct outline of how we should live; rather, it allows us to define it ourselves. When I think of my future and the way I want to live the rest of my life, I consider myself no different than the people who totally abandoned their humanity or the people who completely embraced it.

The history of terrorism can be traced back as far as the French revolution. Some of these acts of terrorism only seem as distant reminders of our past, but at the same time, are not a far cry from today’s brutal acts; and although these acts seem distant, it doesn’t also mean they are no longer in the thoughts of individuals in today’s time.