The topic I will be writing about is the nature and possible threat to democracy and freedom of Islamic Fundamentalism/Extremism. I feel this topic is highly relevant to the common American being the current status of the War on Terror in the middle east and the 9/11 attacks. The questions I want to aim to answer are what differentiates fundamental Islam from any other form of extremism, and why is this specific form of extremism a threat to global freedom and democracy. I want to go in depth as to why fundamental Islam goes beyond conflicting with just the U.S. or western ideas, and actually is something that should concern the planet. I do not want to be offensive, as the Pope devotes himself to the Church but is not an extremist or fundamentalist Catholic, I only want to focus on the one violent stem of a peaceful religion that is enveloping the middle east, and the nature of its existence and danger level. My audience would be anyone who has been a victim to or currently fears ISIS and other terrorist organizations that claim Islam is their motive, along with those of the Islamic faith who wish to know more about why anyone would turn to violence from the religion they practice. I feel I will be most persuasive in looking to historical sources of violent events that involved Islam, and also in looking to information about current terrorist organizations and their motives and past actions. I cannot make any assumptions of even logical deductions myself, as I will seem prejudice, so I will be dependent on sources that are as objective as possible.
Expansion of Islamic Fundamentalism
1. Claim of Fact
Islamic Fundamentalism is Expanding
2. Claim of Definition
Islamic Fundamentalism is a growing threat to democracy.
3. Claim of Cause
Moderate ideals of Islamic Fundamentalism has been around since the creation of the Islamic religion itself. Aggression and the threat Islamic extremism proposes has been apparent since the Cold War era Palestine Israeli wars and Iran Hostage Crisis.
4. Claim of Value
Islamic Fundamentalism is unethical.
5. Claim of Policy
Awareness should be spread about the difference between the religion of Islam and Islamic Fundamentalism, along with dispelling stereotypes around the Islamic faith to show Islamic Fundamentalism is not part of the religion.
Right now I am still trying piece everything together and develop my arguments. I’m trying not to be ambiguous or too objective with my project, but I also don’t want to be offensive. One concern I have is I do not know if my issue is too ambiguous as it is, as it does not really have a counter argument. I am planning on creating a research paper around the backgrounds and origins of Islamic fundamentalism and the justification of Islamophobia. I have no intention of backing up bias or stereotypes, I only want to elaborate on why a person may be afraid of someone of the Islamic faith based on current hostilities in the middle east. Essentially, I want to go into detail why a person may be afraid of seeing a man with a turban and a trench coat on an airplane.
The article takes an in depth analysis of the reasoning, past, rise, and myths of Islamic extremism in the middle east. Mauro discusses how terrorism does not have to be affiliated with Islamic extremism, and attempts to clarify specifically what exactly Islamic extremism is. He also goes into detail of how the world has reacted and what might be a better way in dealing with threatening Islamic Extremism, and gives examples on terrorist organizations that have held Islamic extremism as the sovereign priority.
Mauro’s analysis on fundamental Islamic on every aspect from stereotypes that are affiliated to the culture, to the impact of the extremism on the world. He specifically talks about the rise and origins of Islamic extremism, what groups have brought the culture to a level of terrorism, and literally what Islamic fundamentalism entails.
I believe everything we are doing currently will allow us to understand and look into sources as we do research in the future. Rather than blindly trusting sources, we are learning to research the sources we find, take notes on them, and eventually be able to piece together what can be used for our purpose and what can be disregarded.
When I imagine revising my writing, it is something I always dread. When I write, I usually write to succeed the first time, and any revision I have to make later will typically be grammatical. I feel when I write I am able to organize myself in the first go, so revising a paper is not something I commonly do. Throughout high school, every now and then as an assignment I would have to revise a draft that was graded, and in doing so any correction I would have to make would either be because I misspelled a word or was too vague somewhere, but other than that, that would be it. Revising is something I have never really felt a need to do, especially if I read my work over first before submitting it. When it comes to revision I would say proofreading is the first step, and then comes the choice of just simple editing or total revision. If revision is necessary, I would assume it is because a realization has occurred that the paper doesn’t focus overall on a main point enough. While I do not like revising work, I agree with many points Dethier makes except for his argument pertaining to making a worse work. I do believe if something works well do not try to make it better, as ruining work in throwing away what worked best in an attempt to revise is a possibility.
For my rhetorical analysis paper, I am doing my research based around ISIS. I am planning on seeing how different News stations feel ISIS should be approached, dealt with, and what threat they pose. I haven’t spent much time on drafting my paper, and I need to work on finding two ISIS articles that perfectly almost contradict each other. I need to work on how the two articles will contrast and collide with each other and how I will organize my points from each. I’m happy with my topic and and the amount there is to talk about, so I am not entirely worried about writing too little.
For my analysis, I want to pursue the current rise of ISIS, the Islamic State or Syria and Iraq, and discuss the current arguments of the threat level ISIS offers, their origin and current workings in the middle east, what is currently being done to combat them and what may need to be done, and finally discuss some insight of terrorism. ISIS has been deemed by some as being even worse than Al Qaeda or the Taliban, and are currently known to be on a mission of mass genocide and are the cause of hundreds of crucifixions and piles of bodies throughout Syria and Iraq. What makes ISIS even worse is not only their size but that their leadership is not as important as it was to Al Qaeda, so assassinating one man will not bring them down. On a global scale the planet looks to the United States to combat such a threat, however, the biggest questions are who will back the U.S, if the U.S. should be the world’s policeman again, and how long is the U.S. willing to wage another war for that many either are or will question. I love my military and will support it to its end, and ISIS is a serious threat that stands against the pursuit of happiness and the freedom of life itself, and as a New Yorker I have every reason to be concerned about what ISIS may do or are currently doing. I am also brought to want to argue this topic because I want to shed light on it and create arguments that will allow people to learn more and see the weight of what it is ISIS stands for and how it cannot be ignored.
In Biltzer’s piece, he argues how undervalued and overlooked the analysis of the rhetorical situation can be, and he brings up three aspects pertaining to how situational conveying a point to a public audience can be. The fist aspect is Exigence, and he argues the aspects in rhetoric that cannot be changed, such as death. His second aspect analyzes the audience, and how certain rhetoric pertains to a specific audience. The final aspect is constraints, or roadblocks that may affect the audience or exigence negatively pertaining to the rhetoric trying to be implied. Social norms, controversial counter opinions, or prejudice serve as constraints to rhetoric as they challenge anything exigence may imply or dissuade a potential audience.
I found Biltzer’s piece to be fascinating in the sense that he talks about topics never really covered. I find the science he speaks extremely interesting when taking a profound look into what it generally is to be convincing to a public audience. Why people may be attracted to certain opinions any why they may be deterred and who will listen is something that just isn’t really covered very often. To summarize I found the piece so appealing because it basically is an in depth analysis to what it is to be convincing.
In applying Biltzer’s arguments to Emma Watson’s equality speech, it becomes clear that his aspects truly can be found in anything that exists to persuade. The exigence of her speech would be her call for equality between men and women, and that one should not be held in higher regard than the other. Her audience would be anyone concerned for feminism, sexual equality, and even those who wish to know more about the issue. The constraints of her speech would be anyone dissuaded by an actress for a speaker, misogynists, or just any who firmly believe sexuality inequality doesn’t exist or is an issue currently of priority.
1. Gaza Israel Conflict
New York Times
2. ISIS Crisis
New York Times
3. Obama’s New Medicaid Policy
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
The Colbert Report