Select the Eassy reading BELOW
Analyze how the author you chose used classical principles of argumentation--ethos, pathos, logos--and how the principles relate to authority and each other.
Write a strong thesis statement and prove it in the body of the paper. Do some focused prewriting for your essay in which you consider how the author uses the classical principles of argumentation and why it is effective.
Write a 700- to 1,050-word paper analyzing how an author used the classical principles of argumentation--ethos, pathos, and logos--in his or her essay, and how these principles relate to authority in a chosen essay.
Support your claims about the essay with specific examples.
Chapter 2 Lynch Essay
22 July 2004
The Horrors of Terrorism
Terrorism is much like a parasite, relying entirely on the lifesustaining
f luids of civilization for sustenance. Like science fiction
horrors, terrorism lies in the minds and hearts of evil-minded people,
sucking the life f luids of society, leaving fear in the hearts of victims
wherever it strikes. It grows, thrives, and spreads, darkening the
lives of the innocent and the jaded alike. As a result, society must
learn how to deal with this hidden parasite, this ephemeral demon,
this horribly real nightmare. We must tread this path with caution.
In an attempt to stop terrorism, we do not want to become terrorists
The issues of how and when it is necessary for society to deal
with terrorism have, fortunately, already begun to be discussed.
Hugh Segal, for example, discusses the very problems of when
and how to deal with terrorism in his article “Accomodating Evil:
Sometimes, Military Action Is Proper and Necessary. Is This Such
a Time?” Segal discusses the consequences of dealing with and,
conversely, not dealing with U.S.-aimed terrorism based in the
Middle East. He specif ically discusses military action. On the one
hand, military action will result in unfortunate collateral damage—
innocents will die and buildings, stores, and other structures
that have little or no ties with terrorism will face destruction.
Governments that condone and even back terrorism will kill their
countries’ citizens in the attempt to harm their enemies. On the
other hand, he says, those same governments will still harm their
citizens: such governments squash freedoms and harass their
citizens. Penalties for infractions, however minor, can be harsh.
Indeed, the consequences of either option, whether military action
or complacency, are bleak indeed, as Segal presents them: harm
comes to innocents whether military action is taken or not.
Innocents are harmed either way.
Another consequence is offered in Randall Hamud’s ar ticle,
“We’re Fighting Terror, but Killing Freedom.” This dire outcome that
Hamud describes is one that often accompanies terrorism and war.
This consequence, born out of fear and hate, manifests itself in
harassment of certain peoples based mostly on a common ancestry
with those whom are truly at fault. For example, during World War II,
Japanese Americans were arrested, interrogated, and put into camps
for fear of what they might do. Similarly, Americans of Middle
Eastern descent are now being harassed and arrested for fear that
they will participate in terrorist activities. Hamud provides examples
of what he has faced. He speaks of death threats that he has received
through the telephone and other means. Hamud also speaks of some
of his clients, arrested primarily for their ancestry. In one case, his
clients were arrested because suspects in the September 11, 2001,
hijackings met and befriended them. These clients were arrested not
because they were believed to have participated in the hijackings but
to testify against the suspected hijackers. Essentially, Hamud is
talking about a consequence of terrorism that goes beyond physical
misfortunes and goes truly and deeply into the realm of the mind and
Related to the harassment and prejudices of innocent Americans
is the treatment of prisoners of war and the use of torture. Certain
rules, which have been established by the Geneva Convention and
other treaties, govern how prisoners of war are to be treated. Ruth
Wedgwood and R. James Woolsey discuss in their Wall Street Journal
article “Law and Torture” the Convention against Torture (CAT), a
treaty ratified by the United States in 1994. Torture, according to
CAT, is “the intentional inf liction of severe pain or suffering,
whether physical or mental . . . on a person for such purposes as
obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession”
(qtd. in Wedgwood and Woolsey). The treaty goes on to say that
torture, under any conditions, is wrong (Wedgwood and Woolsey).
In recent years, however, there have been incidents when the rules
against the use of torture have been ignored, even tossed aside, as
pointed out by Jonathan Gatehouse in his article “Photo Finish?”
Gatehouse points out the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, where horrible
things happened to prisoners, including rape and physical assault.
American soldiers abuse prisoners in Iraq.
This and similar events have brought the issue of torture even more to the
forefront in terms of the treatment of prisoners of war. When torture is or is
not acceptable is the major question, and it is a question that is very
hard to answer. After all, terrorists are seemingly willing to use any
means to gain their desires: witness the events of September 11, 2001.
Torture, in comparison, would almost seem an acceptable means to rid
the world of terrorism. However, it is not. It brings the United States
and its allies down to the level of the terrorist.
Other problems also arise with the issue of terrorism. Perhaps the
largest hurdle, presented capably by Michael Ware in his article “Meet
the New Jihad,” is that terrorists do not really want to change. Most,
as presented by Ware, believe that what they are doing is right and
good. As Ware goes on to discuss, they also have plans. Indeed, Ware
states, “They [terrorists of Middle Eastern descent] want to
transform Iraq into . . . a training ground for young jihadist groups
that will form the next wave of recruits for al-Qaeda and like-minded
groups.” Essentially, those who practice terrorism are seeking to
ensure the survival of terrorism (Ware). If this is the case, when the
United States and its allies engage in tactics like torture to extract
information, they are doing very little to discourage terrorism. From
the point of view of the terrorists, these incidents of torture provide
justif ication for their actions. The photos from Abu Ghraib simply
provided the terrorists with one more reason to hate the West and
gave them yet another wonderful recruitment tool.
Terrorism is a horrifying prospect that must be dealt with soon.
While the duty of dealing with terrorism belongs to all society, the duty
will prove to be a very difficult, hazardous journey. Af ter all, there is a
knife’s edge between dealing with terrorism in proper, civilized ways
and dealing with terrorism by becoming terrorists ourselves.