Evaluating the evidence
The purpose of this project is to educate people on evaluating propaganda used by government. There are legitimate reasons that countries engage in war, and the government should outline a case for war with logical arguments and proper evidence. The propaganda used in the War on Terror was filled with emotional appeal, but was lacking in logical argument. I will highlight some of the propaganda used to show that the arguments lacked merit, but were highly persuasive due to the emotional state of the audience. The propaganda used was highly dependent upon the public's feelings of patriotismfollowing the attacks. As Gallup polls indicated; "The Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks elevated Americans' sense of patriotism -- that is clear from a second Gallup trend question, which has shown no less than 61% (and as many as 70%) of Americans saying they are "extremely proud" to be American in five separate polls conducted following 9/11, compared with only 55% in a January 2001 poll" (Gallup.com).
The War on Terror Narrative
We can view the war on terror as a narrative set in the framework of good vs. evil. The narrative for war begins on September 11, 2001, with the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The explanation provided by the government was the terrorists attacked us because they hate us for our freedoms. Additionally, the idea that the terrorists want to spread a radical form of Islam throughout the world was promoted by politicians and the media. The religious belief is that the terrorists are justified in killing infidels who refuse to be converted to Islam: the "convert or die" doctrine. The propaganda promoted stereotypes of radical Islam as well as a sense of nationalism in the form of "them vs. us." The terrorists were labeled evil, and any groups supporting terrorists were placed in the "axis of evil."
There is little controversy regarding the attacks as evil, most reasonable people would define the murder of over 3000 civilians an evil act; however, defining terrorism is not as simple as the media and government promote. In The Politics of Terror, Stephan Nathanson claims that popular definitions of terrorism can be hypocritical and self-serving. He argues that most definitions are bias, and fail to recognize that national armed forces can be viewed as committing acts of terrorism when civilians are killed during war. Nathanson defines terroristic acts through a set of criteria: "1. The acts are of serious, deliberate violence or destruction. 2. They are committed as part of a campaign to promote a political or social agenda. 3. They generally target limited numbers of people but aim to influence a larger group and/or the leaders who make decisions for the group. 4. They either kill or injure innocent people or pose a serious threat of such harms to innocent people" (10). This definition of terrorism is more complex and less bias than the definition provided by the media and government. Yet, within this definition lies another issue. The term "innocent" is subjective.
Because the term "innocent" is subjective, Nathanson provides that the best way to determine innocence is through a status-based model. He claims that "People are to be considered innocent (in this context) if 1. they are not public officials or members of the military; 2. they are not responsible for the situation that the terrorists are protexting or seeking to change; 3. they lack the power to respond to terrorist demands or goals" (15). Yet, even this definition is subjective; is a person innocent when they support the foreign policy of the nation who is being targeted? Are we responsible for the actions of our government if we do nothing to stop the policies? Is complacency, ignorance, or lack of engagement a basis for responsibility? All these questions will have different answers depending upon the individual, his or her beliefs, values, and point of reference. I cannot provide answers, but I hope that readers will investigate these issues on their own.
There is little controversy regarding the attacks as evil, most reasonable people would define the murder of over 3000 civilians an evil act; however, defining terrorism is not as simple as the media and government promote. In The Politics of Terror, Stephan Nathanson claims that popular definitions of terrorism can be hypocritical and self-serving. He argues that most definitions are bias, and fail to recognize that national armed forces can be viewed as committing acts of terrorism when civilians are killed during war. Nathanson defines terroristic acts through a set of criteria: "1. The acts are of serious, deliberate violence or destruction. 2. They are committed as part of a campaign to promote a political or social agenda. 3. They generally target limited numbers of people but aim to influence a larger group and/or the leaders who make decisions for the group. 4. They either kill or injure innocent people or pose a serious threat of such harms to innocent people" (10). This definition of terrorism is more complex and less bias than the definition provided by the media and government. Yet, within this definition lies another issue. The term "innocent" is subjective.
Because the term "innocent" is subjective, Nathanson provides that the best way to determine innocence is through a status-based model. He claims that "People are to be considered innocent (in this context) if 1. they are not public officials or members of the military; 2. they are not responsible for the situation that the terrorists are protexting or seeking to change; 3. they lack the power to respond to terrorist demands or goals" (15). Yet, even this definition is subjective; is a person innocent when they support the foreign policy of the nation who is being targeted? Are we responsible for the actions of our government if we do nothing to stop the policies? Is complacency, ignorance, or lack of engagement a basis for responsibility? All these questions will have different answers depending upon the individual, his or her beliefs, values, and point of reference. I cannot provide answers, but I hope that readers will investigate these issues on their own.
September 11, 2001
The rhetoric of terrorism...
The attacks of 9/11 can be viewed as a rhetorical act. There have been many theories regarding the reasons America was attacked, so I will provide my own generalized belief in order to provide a simplified explanation of the rhetorical elements of the act. The agents (terrorists) used an attack on America (audience) in order to communicate their objections to American foreign policy with the goal of changing the policy through public opinion.
Many Americans watched the tragedy unfold on live television. Footage of the terrorist attacks was played and replayed continuously for days after the attacks. Many major news outlets continued to highlight the story for weeks and months after 9/11. Each year, NBC, ABC, CBS, and other networks, honor the anniversary with special reports on 9/11. |
|
The response
George W. Bush at ground zero giving his "bullhorn address" to the rescue workers.
President Bush: Thank you all. I want you all to know -- it [bullhorn] can't go any louder -- I want you all to know that American today, American today is on bended knee, in prayer for the people whose lives were lost here, for the workers who work here, for the families who mourn. The nation stands with the good people of New York City and New Jersey and Connecticut as we mourn the loss of thousands of our citizens
Rescue Worker: I can't hear you!
President Bush: I can hear you! I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people -- and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!
Rescue Workers: [Chanting] U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!
U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!
President Bush: The nation -- The nation sends its love and compassion
Rescue Worker: God bless America!
President Bush: -- to everybody who is here. Thank you for your hard work.
Thank you for makin' the nation proud, and may God bless America.
Rescue Workers: [Chanting] U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!
Transcript from Americanrhetoric.com http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/gwbush911groundzerobullhorn.htm
Photo from http://www.clevelandseniors.com/people/nypics3.htm
President Bush: Thank you all. I want you all to know -- it [bullhorn] can't go any louder -- I want you all to know that American today, American today is on bended knee, in prayer for the people whose lives were lost here, for the workers who work here, for the families who mourn. The nation stands with the good people of New York City and New Jersey and Connecticut as we mourn the loss of thousands of our citizens
Rescue Worker: I can't hear you!
President Bush: I can hear you! I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people -- and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!
Rescue Workers: [Chanting] U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!
U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!
President Bush: The nation -- The nation sends its love and compassion
Rescue Worker: God bless America!
President Bush: -- to everybody who is here. Thank you for your hard work.
Thank you for makin' the nation proud, and may God bless America.
Rescue Workers: [Chanting] U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!
Transcript from Americanrhetoric.com http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/gwbush911groundzerobullhorn.htm
Photo from http://www.clevelandseniors.com/people/nypics3.htm
The speech, given at Ground Zero just days after the attack inspired a true "rally around the flag" moment for Americans. In the days following September 11th, many democrats and republicans, liberals and conservatives, forgot about their differences and unified in mourning. From the beginning, it seemed understood that we would enter a new era of war as marked by the president's words, "the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." As a rhetorical act, the short speech was intended to unify, to show solidarity for all Americans. Another way to evaluate the speech is to look at the speech as an answer to the criticism Bush received in the media just after the attacks. He was criticized for what appeared to be a slow response to the tragedy that morning when he was visiting an elementary school in Florida. In this speech the president re-established ethos, or "trustworthiness and credibility," (284) as described by Jack Selzer in "Rhetorical Analysis: Understanding How Texts Persuade Readers." The president responded to the rhetorical situation, "the circumstances of subject, audience, occassion, and purpose" (Selzer, 282). The audience was all Americans, as well as, the world. The president answered the circumstance of the attacks, and advised the world that America would recover and respond. The speech served multiple purposes.
The Axis of Evil: It's them vs. "us."
Click here for full text and/or audio of the entire speech.
President Bush lays the groundwork for war. He names and separates the enemy, "This group and its leader -- a person named Usama bin Laden
-- are linked to many other organizations in different countries, including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan." In his speech, he was careful to isolate the radical Islamists from the religion of Islam, stating that "the terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism
that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics, a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of
Islam." He explained that they hate us because we're free, they hate us for our democracy (they hate us for being us), and stated that "freedom was under attack." The argument is compelling and littered with emotional appeal; however, the speech lacked higher levels of proof that should be required prior to waging war. The president's speech aimed to unify Americans against a common enemy, and garner support for "a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen." He outlined a plan for keeping America safe while preparing a campaign against the enemy. Bush also made it clear that "freedom and fear are at war," and it was up to America to advance freedom the world over by fighting and eliminating the terrorists. He also made it clear that any country who protects or assists the terrorists would be considered an enemy; "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
In this speech, Bush used many emotionally charged words along with metaphors. The words "fringe" and "perverts" were juxtaposed against "peaceful teachings;" "hate" and "free" were used together, our very "freedom was under attack." This is a strong metaphor that strikes at the heart of American values. The image of "freedom and fear" at war, is another strong metaphor that relies upon the fear Americans just experience juxtaposed against the American value of freedom. The speech was filled with metaphors and words that reinforced American values, and the duty of America to defend freedom.
President Bush lays the groundwork for war. He names and separates the enemy, "This group and its leader -- a person named Usama bin Laden
-- are linked to many other organizations in different countries, including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan." In his speech, he was careful to isolate the radical Islamists from the religion of Islam, stating that "the terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism
that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics, a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of
Islam." He explained that they hate us because we're free, they hate us for our democracy (they hate us for being us), and stated that "freedom was under attack." The argument is compelling and littered with emotional appeal; however, the speech lacked higher levels of proof that should be required prior to waging war. The president's speech aimed to unify Americans against a common enemy, and garner support for "a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen." He outlined a plan for keeping America safe while preparing a campaign against the enemy. Bush also made it clear that "freedom and fear are at war," and it was up to America to advance freedom the world over by fighting and eliminating the terrorists. He also made it clear that any country who protects or assists the terrorists would be considered an enemy; "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
In this speech, Bush used many emotionally charged words along with metaphors. The words "fringe" and "perverts" were juxtaposed against "peaceful teachings;" "hate" and "free" were used together, our very "freedom was under attack." This is a strong metaphor that strikes at the heart of American values. The image of "freedom and fear" at war, is another strong metaphor that relies upon the fear Americans just experience juxtaposed against the American value of freedom. The speech was filled with metaphors and words that reinforced American values, and the duty of America to defend freedom.
Pro-War PropagandaIn this poster the reader is ordered to support the troops by a stern "Uncle Sam." The poster utilizes the stars and stripes symbolism; the poster is outlined in red and blue, and Uncle Sam is depicted with stars on his hat. The poster does not qualify what constitutes "support." Since Uncle Sam is the only character depicted in the poster, the reader may infer that support for the troops means support for the government's war policies.
|
Anti-War PropagandaThis poster answers Uncle Sam's order to support the troops and war. While the poster utilizes the same image of Uncle Sam as the pro-war poster, the colors used within the poster are different. The red colors are used, not as a symbol of American pride, but to highlight the "you" (reader). In fact, the reader may imagine blood upon seeing the color red. Just underneath the stark colors the word "die" is used in the phrase.
|
Anti-war propaganda
Click on the photos for a brief explanation and link to the original.
War Propaganda
Click the photos for a brief explanation and link to their sources.
Press:
Many newspapers and magazines promoted the idea that tenents of Islam promote terrorism. In an article published in Townhall.com on November 20, 2003 (at the start of the Iraq war), columnist Larry Elder interviewed author, Robert Spencer, who has written extensively about the religion of Islam. Spencer founded a blog called Jihad Watch, and co-founded the Stop the Islamization of America. In the article, Spencer argued that, "The only Koran that really matters is what's in Arabic, because as far as traditional Islamic theology goes, Allah . . . was speaking to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel, and the language is intrinsic, can't be separated from the message. The fact is that what's in Arabic is very clear . . . but in two opposite directions. What you have are very many verses of peace and tolerance, and also very many verses sanctioning and mandating violence against non-believers. . . ."
Divide
While the attacks of September 11th unified the nation temporarily, after the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, Americans have been divided along the lines of those supporting or opposing the wars. Much of the divide is along the party lines between Republicans (who generally support the wars), and Democrats (who generally oppose the wars). President Obama's policies of continued war has even created a divide within the Democratic party.
Politicians who seek to retain office must consider the opinions of the "base" of their party. How much of a roll does public opinion play in directing policy? Is the public capable of making informed and educated policy decisions? What mechanisms shape public opinion? I will explore these questions on the public opinion page of this site.
Politicians who seek to retain office must consider the opinions of the "base" of their party. How much of a roll does public opinion play in directing policy? Is the public capable of making informed and educated policy decisions? What mechanisms shape public opinion? I will explore these questions on the public opinion page of this site.
Click here to go to the Outcast page.