Throughout the world, articles about terrorism are placed into people’s mailboxes and the local newsstands and grocery stores. These articles may go into great detail about a specific act of violence used by extremists like the attacks in New York City on September 11th, 2001, depicting the attack as a worldly problem. But, the simpler article may just explain about the idea of terrorism and the threats it may have towards the world or the resources the extremists want in order to possibly rule the world, as if a bank robber wants a ransom for the hostages he has inside the bank. As people may just be focused on the photography of the articles and the impact the photograph has on the reader or viewer, the main piece people don’t specifically
…show more content…
The language that is used to explain the war on terror is key, as people not living in the war-stricken countries need to see the carnage and the main reason why the war is being fought, to promote peace. In “We are Losing the War on Terror”, an article written by David Rothkopf, explains how the terrorists are gaining momentum in the War on Terror. In the article, Rothkopf uses two specific examples of strong languages to show how the world is losing the War on Terror. First, Rothkopf uses a more statistical approach, saying in paragraph two that “In 2007, these groups conducted 100 attacks, last year they conducted 950” and that “The new high-end estimate” of terrorists has risen to 105,000 in only one year. This use of a statistical form of language explains to the reader that the terrorists are rising in power, as new groups are being formed to threaten the world and slow the efforts of the coalition to end the War on Terror. Later in paragraph nine, Rothkopf specifically names one of these groups, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIS, and their method of “cutting its teeth in the Syria conflict” taking over much of Mosul, which is Iraq’s second largest city. Rothkopf’s use of cutting its teeth explains how ISIS is destroying anything and anybody in its way, becoming a force to be reckoned with in the War on Terror. And if ISIS cannot be stopped, this overtaking of many cities may reach Europe or even worse, North America. Not only does David Rothkopf’s article explain about the War on Terror, source five, a piece written by Geoffrey Nunberg, titled “The –Ism Schism: How Much Wallop Can a Simple Word Pack?”, explains about how the use of the term “War on Terror”, is disputed throughout the world. Nunberg explains that “The war on terror, too, suggests a campaign aimed not at human adversaries but at a pervasive social plague.”
The language that is used to explain the war on terror is key, as people not living in the war-stricken countries need to see the carnage and the main reason why the war is being fought, to promote peace. In “We are Losing the War on Terror”, an article written by David Rothkopf, explains how the terrorists are gaining momentum in the War on Terror. In the article, Rothkopf uses two specific examples of strong languages to show how the world is losing the War on Terror. First, Rothkopf uses a more statistical approach, saying in paragraph two that “In 2007, these groups conducted 100 attacks, last year they conducted 950” and that “The new high-end estimate” of terrorists has risen to 105,000 in only one year. This use of a statistical form of language explains to the reader that the terrorists are rising in power, as new groups are being formed to threaten the world and slow the efforts of the coalition to end the War on Terror. Later in paragraph nine, Rothkopf specifically names one of these groups, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIS, and their method of “cutting its teeth in the Syria conflict” taking over much of Mosul, which is Iraq’s second largest city. Rothkopf’s use of cutting its teeth explains how ISIS is destroying anything and anybody in its way, becoming a force to be reckoned with in the War on Terror. And if ISIS cannot be stopped, this overtaking of many cities may reach Europe or even worse, North America. Not only does David Rothkopf’s article explain about the War on Terror, source five, a piece written by Geoffrey Nunberg, titled “The –Ism Schism: How Much Wallop Can a Simple Word Pack?”, explains about how the use of the term “War on Terror”, is disputed throughout the world. Nunberg explains that “The war on terror, too, suggests a campaign aimed not at human adversaries but at a pervasive social plague.”