A Rhetorical Analysis Of Rhetoric

When considering matters of terrorism, it is helpful to remember that the topic is highly charged with rhetoric. Not only are the semantics of the word itself fiercely contested, but terrorist acts both inspire, and are motivated by, unending torrents of nationalism, idealism, hate speech and propaganda. So in analyzing Daniel Byman and Christine Fair’s “The Case for Calling Them Nitwits”, a thought to bear in mind is that the article can itself be considered an analysis of rhetoric – the broadly defined rhetoric used by terrorist groups to recruit new members and inspire fear in their targets. In their opinion piece, Byman and Fair provide a plethora of well-presented evidence countering two of the strongest aspects of this rhetoric: the logical premise that they are capable of …show more content…
Since their portrayal of terrorism runs, as mentioned, essentially contrary to the overwhelming majority of media outlets, the reader’s interest is immediately held. In the same vein, the authors cater to skeptical readers by providing stories and statistics to back their claims – in fact, evidentiary exposition comprises roughly half of the two page article. And finally, in presenting their main claims, the authors use mitigating language to make their arguments both stronger and more appealing. However, their arguments are by no means bland – if another large-scale, well-planned terrorist attack occurred on U.S. soil tomorrow, most of the claims in this article would seem incredibly arrogant and foolish. That danger represents both the greatest weakness and strength of mockery: it strengthens the authors’ claims by staking their reputation and image on them. Daniel Byman and Amanda Fair’s choice to write a piece using a mocking tone makes explicitly clear their belief that such an attack is unlikely, which is perhaps their strongest argument of