ClumsyMonkey.net

Since when were countries required to file these reports. I guess it's one of the downsides of globalization, you lose some political control over your own country.

One place for serious concern is postwar Iraq which, the report finds, "has become a fertile ground for al Qaeda" by offering targets such as the coalition troops.

Wow, sounds like they're doing a good job over there!

We read this article in english class yesterday, and I found it very interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story ... 24,00.html

Since when were countries required to file these reports. I guess it's one of the downsides of globalization, you lose some political control over your own country.

Since they unanimously passed a resolution on terrorism in 2001!

We read this article in english class yesterday, and I found it very interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story ... 24,00.html

I really hope your teacher emphasized that that article was from the "comment" or editorial section of that paper. Meaning that its not fact and just someones OPINION! Sure you're never gonna completely defeat terrorist attacks, but you sure as hell can put a huge dent in it. If all countries freeze their assests and arrest them it will GREATLY hinder their organization.

If all countries would stop making and selling weapons that would hinder them too, it's just not going to happen.

happeningfish wrote:

One place for serious concern is postwar Iraq which, the report finds, "has become a fertile ground for al Qaeda" by offering targets such as the coalition troops.

Wow, sounds like they're doing a good job over there!

Venom wrote:

We read this article in english class yesterday, and I found it very interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story ... 24,00.html

I really hope your teacher emphasized that that article was from the "comment" or editorial section of that paper. Meaning that its not fact and just someones OPINION! Sure you're never gonna completely defeat terrorist attacks, but you sure as hell can put a huge dent in it. If all countries freeze their assests and arrest them it will GREATLY hinder their organization.

Yes, we know it is opinion. It was used as an example of persuasive writing. We were to break it down by its use of the rhetorical triangle.


As the article says..."Terrorism is a technique, not an enemy state that can be defeated" Encreasing hate towards the western world is not going to decrease the terrorists in any sense. It is not one enemy that the war is against. There is no nation that we can defeat. That's not the way it works. I don't believe this war is going to hinder terrorists actions in the slightest. The fact that attacks against military in Iraq has increased since the war "ended" is proof of this.

how many of these 108 countries actually have the means to fight the war on terrorism?

No one has the means to fight terrorism because it can't be stopped. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if someone has the will they'll find a way. If buddy over there wants to walk into a crowded mall with some explosives attached to him, no one is going to stop him. It's impossible unless you turn things into a type of Orwellian system.

No one has the means to fight terrorism because it can't be stopped. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if someone has the will they'll find a way. If buddy over there wants to walk into a crowded mall with some explosives attached to him, no one is going to stop him. It's impossible unless you turn things into a type of Orwellian system.

No one is trying to end all terrorism. The War on Terrorism's main goal is to thwart 9/11 type attacks. Attacks that CAN be avoided. I fully agree with you. You can't stop it all. Just like you can't stop all murders, thieves, rapists, etc.

Yes, we know it is opinion. It was used as an example of persuasive writing. We were to break it down by its use of the rhetorical triangle.

So if it was an example of persuasive writing your teacher was at least telling you that the writer was trying to influence peoples opinions with his/her own. However I think your teacher was wrong to use that example. It makes me wonder if he/she herself wasn't trying to persuade her students to think about something a certain way. Hmmmmmm

This doesnt have a lot to do with the topic but if you are looking at any example of persuasive writing, of course its going to be persuasive!! What else is it supposed to be? If the teacher used a completly unbiased piece of writing it wouldn't really get the point across now would it? Besides that, I am sure everyone here has read those boring and completly uninteresting english stories and what not, so by using an article that has to do with current events that most people have an opinion on, its much easier to stay interested, and people would be able to express their views PERSUASIVLY.

Venom wrote:So if it was an example of persuasive writing your teacher was at least telling you that the writer was trying to influence peoples opinions with his/her own. However I think your teacher was wrong to use that example. It makes me wonder if he/she herself wasn't trying to persuade her students to think about something a certain way. Hmmmmmm

Yes, that IS the way all persuasive writing works... Then what do you suggest we should of used? Considering it HAD to be persuasive writing, it had to be someone's opinion. Just presenting an article asking them to explain if the author used ethos, pathos or logos to persuade their audience, isn't trying to make them think a certain way. These are 16 and 17 year olds, who I HOPE can make up their own minds on a topic. In fact, by encouraging them to understand how an writer does persuade an audience, it makes them more able to deal with all forms of media, and more media literate. Could you please explain again what my teacher was doing wrong?

And by the way, way to ignore my entire point by making a comment that wasn't backed by anything

^^Thanks, I didn't see that you had already posted, but that's exactly what I mean.

Venom wrote:The War on Terrorism's main goal is to thwart 9/11 type attacks. Attacks that CAN be avoided.

The 9/11 attacks could have been avoided if the US would have had proper safety checks on airports and planes, they didn't need to bomb two countries to do that.

or, if they allowed guns on planes.

you mean in the cockpit or by passengers?

both. you know they used to.

Everyone should have baseball bats.
much better solution.

or if they choose, samurai swords.