World of religion
Critical Analysis #1
This essay will provide analysis between the two articles and discussion. Both articles are about the term “radical Islam” and how it’s used. There;s a big divide in how Republicans an Democrats are talking about terrorism — and it;s on unlikely to be solved anytime soon.
A journalist Peter Holley in The Washington Post, wrote a news article called “Radical terrorism: Three words that separate Trump from most of Washington”, about an event happened during “his first speech to a joint session of Congress, President Trump said his administration is ‘taking steps to protect our nation from radical Islamic terrorism.'” Trump didn’t hesitate to say those three words “radical Islamic terroism”, even when he was asked to not use those terms during the speech to Congress from his national security adviser. Holley wants to inform his readers especially the Americans that using the words “radical Islamic terroism” how it can have an effect on not only on the Trump administrators, but also to Islamic states. The title is very straight forward, “‘Radical Islamic terrorism’: Three words that separate Trump from most of Washington”, and notice that he right away used three words in quotations. He didn’t use any persuasion technique such as pathos, there weren’t any emotional appeals, logos, there weren’t any data or statistics. Also there is a lot of quoting from Donald 6 and other former presidents.
“The trouble with the phrase 'radical Islamic terrorism' is that it makes no distinction between the variants that are Sunni and Shiite, which are radically different,” said Bruce Hoffman, director of Georgetown’s Center for Security Studies. “I think there are important distinctions, and if you say 'radical Islamic terrorism,' does that lump in groups like Hamas, for example?” When using the phrase “radical Islamic terroism” it doesn’t really help distinguish the Muslims group such as Shiite and Sunni, however it lump them together.
Former president Barack Obama used the phrase “violent extremism,” which severed the violence carried out by terrorists from any immediate association with theology. Trump and many of his associates, meanwhile, have been explicit about their belief that Western democracy is at war with Islam
McMaster;s reasoning, according to CNN, is that terrorists who profess to act in accordance with Islam aren;t true adherents of the religion but anomalies who pervert its teachings. McMaster argued that using the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” damages the country;s ability to partner with key allies, many of whom are Muslim. Obama administration officials have refrained from using ;Islamic radicalism; and its variants not because of ;political correctness; but because of their nuanced knowledge of the diversity of Islamic ideologies. The term doesn’t enhance anyone’s knowledge of the perpetrators of terrorism or of the societies that spawn them, and it might hurt us in the global war of ideas.
On to the next article, journalist Daniella Diaz, “Obama: Why I won't say 'Islamic terrorism'” in CNN politics, wrote news article about Obama says he doesn;t want to compare the religion of Islam to people who are ;murderers;. Political opponents gave critics over Former Barack Obama’s rhetoric when it comes to terroism. Diaz inform readers by quoting obama. “My son gave his life for acts of terrorism," audience member Tina Houchins told Obama at the town hall moderated by CNN's Jake Tapper. "Do you still believe that the acts of terrorism are done for the self-proclaimed Islamic religious motive? And if you do, why do you still refuse to use the term … Islamic terrorist?
Houchins believes that the act of terrorist is encouraged by Islamic religious. That distinction, they say, prevents sowing dissent among Muslims and recognizes the contribution of Muslims in America and around the world to a more peaceful society. Obama explained that he wants to “make sure that we do not lump these murderers into the billion Muslims around the world who are peaceful, who are responsible, who in this country, are our fellow troops and police officers and firefighters and teachers and neighbors and friends.” "There is no doubt, and I've said repeatedly… They have perverted and distorted and tried to claim the mantle of Islam for an excuse for basically barbarism and death," he said. "These are people who've killed children, killed Muslims, take sex slaves, there's no religious rationale that would justify in any way any of the things that they do,"
The President compared using the term to if a Christian were a murderer but claiming their religion in their action. "If you had an organization that was going around killing and blowing people up and said, 'We're on the vanguard of Christianity.' As a Christian, I'm not going to let them claim my religion and say, 'you're killing for Christ.' I would say, that's ridiculous," Obama said.
There a similaritand differences between these two articles. One similarity is that they both use qoutes from presidents. Second similarity, they are both news article based presidential and concerning about “radical Islamic terriosm” term. Diaz focused on Obama, However Holley focused on Trump. Diaz’s article is about how Obama won’t use the phrases but in Holley’s article, it talked about why trump utters “radical Islamic terriosm.