The 9/11 attacks

The President calls bin Laden “a terrorist”, and draws a powerful visual image to create an adverse impression of Laden by employing antithesis “bright September day was darkened by the worst attack on the American people” and that this atrocity is “seared into our national memory. ” What does he wish to allude by the personal pronoun “our”? This use alienates the non-American audiences from him, as bin Laden has always been a revolutionary leader in the eyes of the Islamic world.

Laden is a hero who rose to the occasion in order to mitigate and resist the savageries of America in the gulf countries. The repercussions of the 9/11 were horrible in America where most of the bearded and turbaned people were butchered openly. The President does not make any mention of this barbarism, and instead claims that “Americans offered their neighbors a hand, offered the wounded their blood, and reaffirmed their ties to each other. ” How can the President claim such things, and what makes him forget the excesses that were performed on the Muslim people on his land and country.

He blames that bin Laden “openly declared war on the United States and was committed to killing innocents in our country and around the globe,” but he does not cite any reasons for such a vehement stand taken by Laden. What were the factors that turned Laden a terrorist and an anti American? The president makes a clean sweep by ignoring this issue and drawing the attention of the audience to his personal contribution behind the assassination of the revolutionary. He pays accolades to him when he says, “I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda.

” The judgment of the president appears more of a personal vendetta than the jeremiad of someone for justice. How easily he talks of the “targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan,” wherein bin Laden was killed in the dead of the night. He again prides himself on saying that “No Americans were harmed. We took care to avoid civilian casualties. ” The president never mentions the cost that the Islamic countries have to pay for it. He discounts the heavy toll that arose in the wake of the drone attacks that he launched all over the Islamic countries such as Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan to capture Laden.

The predatory drones led to the killing of thousands of innocent women and children, and in repercussion of which many innocent youth took to arms and ammunition to defend them against this unjust and one-sided war. What about justice to their families? But the president is concerned about the justice for the victims of the terrorist attacks only. It seems very easy for the president to assert that the American soldiers took custody of the body of Laden, but he never takes pain to disclose what they did to the body of the martyr. How and where was the body disposed of?

Then he arraigns “Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims. ” Can Obama explain why this “mass murderer of Muslims” had to launch a painstaking operation for the demolition of the twin towers and the Pentagon? If he were a slaughterer of the Muslims he would not need to highjack the American planes and dash them into the pride of America. The President wants this third degree murder of an old man living in the company of his wives and children in isolation to “be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.

” But is the act of attacking and killing Laden and his family an act of ethics and dignity? He talks of the innocent Americans that died in the 9/11 attacks but he shirks describing the fate of Laden’s innocent wives and children. Why was Laden not arrested and brought to the court of justice when he had been so easily apprehended in Abbottabad? In order to soothe the angry and hurt sentiments of the Muslim world, the president says that his “war is not against Islam” but can he explain why the drones were used as a salient feature of his foreign policy in Muslim countries only.

The evil of terrorism is spread all over the world, but drones strike the Islamic world only. Why? Why are countries such as Israel, India, Spain, Italy and Columbia deprived of such fatal military strategies? Is the reason not that these countries are inhabited by non-Muslims? The president boasts that the Taliban regime has been uprooted from Afghanistan, but the next moment he says, “ al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. ” Does this statement foreshadow more sufferings in store for the Muslim world?

The president seems extremely biased when he says “efforts weigh on him every time he has to sign a letter to a family that has lost a loved one, or look into the eyes of a service member who’s been gravely wounded. ” But he does not have a word of consolation for the Muslims who were sacrificed on the altar of this war. Nor are the victims eligible for any compensation as they were killed for a just purpose! Yet he says, “justice has been done. ” His allusion to Zardari imports that the Muslim world is happy at the loss of Laden, and that Pakistan should be obliged to America.

But what about the other Islamic nations where the American air force and drones wreak havoc in the name of extirpating al Qaeda? Looking at the post killing aftermaths it can be seen that the murder of Laden sparked a controversy in Pakistani, “which was outraged that the United States chose to carry out the bin Laden mission there without first informing its leaders. ” It looks that the president is hiding a number of issues that should be revealed to the public. Nor does the president comment on the “downed helicopter that U. S. officials hoped to retrieve from bin Laden's compound because of security concerns over the stealth technology.

” In order to conclude the speech the president uses a number of abstract nouns such as “liberty, equality, professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage” and tries to give importance to his actions. He even does not stop from adopting a soothing tone mellowed with religious undertones when he claims that irrespective of “race or ethnicity” the American people are united as one American family. He talks of God, but he does not give any reasons for throwing the body of a man, however dreadful a terrorist he may have been, in the ocean. Is it religious to deprive a terrorist of his last ceremonial rites?

Even a dead terrorist should not be subjected to sink in the ocean with a “bubbling groan, without a grave, unknelled, uncoffined, and unknown. " Obama is a very cunning orator, and he uses his words flamboyantly to emotionally incline his audience to his side of the story. In order that the Muslims do not take a grudge against his anti Islamic feelings he repeatedly alludes to 9/11 mishap. But he cannot be successful in his attempts as his words are a part and parcel of his attitude to the Muslim world, where every resident with a beard or a turban is either a terrorist or a Taliban.

And no doubt even after two years of his murder the death of Laden is a polemic topic that demands further explanations. In the words of Peter Bergen, CNN's national security analyst, “The U. S. forces may have killed the man, but they did not kill his ideology. Al Qaeda has now morphed into a ‘loose jihadist ideological movement’ that spawned the Boston marathon bombing. The president must remember “spite is not best repaid with spite always. ” And as the President of the USA it is his foremost duty to deliver a speech, which receives a warm welcome from people from all walks of life, irrespective of caste, creed and cult.