“An Afghan American Speaks,” is an article found on Salon.com and was written by author Tamim Ansary. The catalyst behind the article were the 9-11 attacks, and to respond to those who thought “bombing Afghanistan back to the stone age” for revenge was a good idea. The argument that is made says bombing Afghanistan would not solve anything, and it would only put innocent lives, who had nothing to do with 9-11, in danger. It’s made clear that the “new bombs would only stir up the rubble of earlier bombs” and the Taliban would only slip away and hide. Because of this, more innocent lives would be taken rather than those of the Taliban which makes us wonder why the people of Afghanistan won’t just rise up and overthrow them. Ansary responds to
…show more content…
He used it well because of his ability to have good sense, good moral character, and good will. He showed compassion for the innocent people of Afghanistan, and believed bombing them was wrong. I like how Ansary mentioned where he was from, and how he was living in the United States because it is important to let the audience know your credentials before diving into a topic like this. I was instantly hooked because it was interesting to hear an Afghan American’s point of view on the situation. Pathos was good for the most part especially when he was talking about the Soviets, and how the Afghans were already suffering. But it took a really dark turn when he mentioned the crippled orphans and how they did not have wheelchairs to escape the bombings. That was a little extreme because it was forcing people to feel pity over something that might not even be true. Logos was ok, but it was not as effective as the other two. I found it interesting, however, when the argument mentioned that Afghanistan was not the Taliban so why punish the entire country? I really found it interesting when it discussed how sending troops to Afghanistan would put American lives in danger because they would have to go through Pakistan. It made me think he was implying that the United States would rather kill off innocent Afghans instead of American
He used it well because of his ability to have good sense, good moral character, and good will. He showed compassion for the innocent people of Afghanistan, and believed bombing them was wrong. I like how Ansary mentioned where he was from, and how he was living in the United States because it is important to let the audience know your credentials before diving into a topic like this. I was instantly hooked because it was interesting to hear an Afghan American’s point of view on the situation. Pathos was good for the most part especially when he was talking about the Soviets, and how the Afghans were already suffering. But it took a really dark turn when he mentioned the crippled orphans and how they did not have wheelchairs to escape the bombings. That was a little extreme because it was forcing people to feel pity over something that might not even be true. Logos was ok, but it was not as effective as the other two. I found it interesting, however, when the argument mentioned that Afghanistan was not the Taliban so why punish the entire country? I really found it interesting when it discussed how sending troops to Afghanistan would put American lives in danger because they would have to go through Pakistan. It made me think he was implying that the United States would rather kill off innocent Afghans instead of American