Rhetorical Analysis of Bjorn Staerk’s “Living with Terrorism”
“Living with Terrorism,” is a blog post written by Norwegian blogger Bjorn Staerk on bearstrong.net in 2006. In this essay, Steark provides his perspective on how to manage and cope with the sensitive topic of worldwide terrorism. Intended for the conservative public, this essay is also written as a rebuttal to the far-right and anti-Islamic Norwegian blogger Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen (aka Fjordman). Fjordman suggested in one of his blogs that Islam, not Islamism--the reform movement that advocates the reordering of government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islamic beliefs-- was the culprit behind terrorism, and this greatly displeased Staerk’s Universalist creed …show more content…
Not only does he upset his audience with his unconventional views, he also formulates the basis of his argument on a lack of credibility and logic, which in turn results in an impractical and nonsensical essay. Staerk’s argument would be taken more seriously if he had taken the time to add credibility and common sense to his work. Though he is partially correct that the sublunary fear of terrorism could, to an extent, be used as a weapon against nations to induce prejudice and discrimination, he is incorrect to think the reduction of fear will help reduce the effects of terrorism on nations. Staerk expects his reader to conform to the idea that one should just “deal” with terrorism without suspicion or counterattacks, and his extreme pacifism and suicidal tolerance becomes his downfall. One should not just stay home and watch terrorists take over everything one loves, one should instead partake in this dilemma and try to find the most effective-yet also reasonable- way of counterattacking terrorism through careful planning and
“Living with Terrorism,” is a blog post written by Norwegian blogger Bjorn Staerk on bearstrong.net in 2006. In this essay, Steark provides his perspective on how to manage and cope with the sensitive topic of worldwide terrorism. Intended for the conservative public, this essay is also written as a rebuttal to the far-right and anti-Islamic Norwegian blogger Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen (aka Fjordman). Fjordman suggested in one of his blogs that Islam, not Islamism--the reform movement that advocates the reordering of government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islamic beliefs-- was the culprit behind terrorism, and this greatly displeased Staerk’s Universalist creed …show more content…
Not only does he upset his audience with his unconventional views, he also formulates the basis of his argument on a lack of credibility and logic, which in turn results in an impractical and nonsensical essay. Staerk’s argument would be taken more seriously if he had taken the time to add credibility and common sense to his work. Though he is partially correct that the sublunary fear of terrorism could, to an extent, be used as a weapon against nations to induce prejudice and discrimination, he is incorrect to think the reduction of fear will help reduce the effects of terrorism on nations. Staerk expects his reader to conform to the idea that one should just “deal” with terrorism without suspicion or counterattacks, and his extreme pacifism and suicidal tolerance becomes his downfall. One should not just stay home and watch terrorists take over everything one loves, one should instead partake in this dilemma and try to find the most effective-yet also reasonable- way of counterattacking terrorism through careful planning and