The war on terror is a name of the campaign led by the United Kingdom, the USA and its allies against Afganhistan and Irak. The campaign was waged against Al-Qaeda. The name War on terror was a catchphrase used by Bush to prepare a global military and ideological struggle against terrorism.
The september 11th attacks were a series of terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda. On September 11, 200, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing everyone on board and many others working in the buildings.
The Saudi evacuation: the terrorist attacks took place on the morning of 9/11. Then there was a ban on every flight. The Saudis were not interrogated by the FBI even if people knew that Al qaeda and Bin laden were responsiblw for the attacks.
There are cospiracy theorists who believe the attacks were an excuse for the US to attack Irak. Some others believe people in the US possessed information about the attacks but didn't try to stop the terrorists.
The War on Terror is a campaign led by the UK and the US so as to stop terrorism. Other NATO countries joined them in their fight against terrorism. The first thing they did (2001), they invaded Afghanistan in response to the terrorist attack.
1. Summary (Javier Ricó, Myriam, Blanca, Laura, Victoire, Ines)
the passage reveals the hidden story of the attacks of 9/11. The first part of the text deals with the context of the attacks. The second part exposes Bush’s reaction to those unexpected events, and he blames former president Bush for being dazed and confused at such critical events. In the third part, the journalist explores the feelings of the American public opinion, traumatized by the attacks. He explains the methods used by the government. Bush may have felt afraid or confused because he didn't know whether the event was an accident or a terrorist attack., the journalist's aim is to focus on Bush's puzzling behaviour. The first part deals with the context of the attacks, the second part deals with Bush's reaction. Finally, the last part deals with the public opinion, and the fears of all the nation.
In the wake of 9/11 attacks some people have questioned the official story of the terrorist attacks because The Saudis and Bin Laden's relatives received special treatment and were allowed to leave the country without being interrogated. The journalist’s point of view is well argued and biased.
The journalist's point of view reveals the secret relationship between the most powerfull dynasties. The allegation of conspiracy suppressed the truth from the world community. He explores this relationship between the Saudis royal family and Bush's family. The journalist reveals the conspiracy between the Saudis and Bush's family The journalist explains what Bush did during the attacks, he was in a classroom with elementary students and then, Bush made a statement to the nation. The nation was panic-stricken. There might have been a conflict of interests between the two families.
This chapter is a critical insight to the 9/11 attacks.
Conclusion : The passage provides critical insight into the events that led up to the Iraq War
A. Commentary: the journalist’s point of view
(Marina): The journalist is biased against the Bush administration, because he suggests everything was a conspiration. He first exposes the fact that Bush didn't look worried when he was told about the attacks. Bush might have been influenced by his strong ties with the Saudis. While the airports were shut down, the Saudis were allowed to fly out of the US. The Royal family of Arabia had a special treatment. So according to the journalist, "the whole story is full of startling paradoxes". Bush might have tried to distort the truth. He was caught in a conflict of interests. Bush might have been looking for a pretext to start a war against Irak-
(Jardel): The journalist suggests that the Bush administration was implicated in the 9/11 attacks. The two families (Bush and to he Saudis) were closely linked. Bin Laden's family left the country in a private jet while american citizens were ordered not to fly.
(Patricia): The journalist suggests that the real story is full of startling paradoxe. His aim is to focus in the relationship between the Saudi Royals and the Bush family. He exposes the conflcit of interests and the abuse of relationships because Bush had a special relationship with the Saudis. When it all happened, president Bush allowed the Saudis to get out of the US, while Americans couldn't take any flight.
(Carmen): His aim is to focus on the attitude that Bush had when he heard the news that the nation had been attacked. He looked puzzled and confused. His relationship with the Saudis is also highlighted in the article. According to the journalist, the Saudis evacuation happened too fast.
(Ines) the journalist’s aim was to focus on the mistakes the the Bush administration made on the day of the 9/11 attacks. The article conveys the impression that it was all a frame-up to get involved in Irak, an oil-producing country. The journalist uses a sarcastic and ironical tone to convey his message.
(Javier Hernandez) He implies that the American nation was made to believe that nothing had been planned.
B.The rhetoric : what makes the speech powerful ? (rhetorical devices to convince : repetitions “place to place” “we will” / emphatic adjectives (hostile) / a bombastic style (“found, stopped, defeated”) / parallelisms : “either you are ...or / tone of voice : dramatic, forceful, strong political statements (“every nation in every region ....) to stir up enthusiasm, to galvanize Americans into “a war” He is talking tough. The aim :to grab the audience’ attention, the audience is hooked in, He is hammering in the facts : , sticking to the active voice “we”, he knew that Americans respond well to words such as ..., fluid speech, Syllogism (a logical argument in three parts - two premises and a conclusion which folows necessarily from them : example : we will starve terrorists ... every nation has a decision to make. He pushes all nations to make a decision on the basis of a logical series of arguments.
Opinion: (Juan) In my opinion, there is no conspiracy. I don't think that there could have been a man that provoked such horrific attack for its own interest. I think Bush used the attacks and took advantage of the situation. On the other hand, there' s lots of evidence that prove there could have been a conspiracy, such as the Saudi evacuation or the close relationship between the Saudis and Bush's family.
Opinion: (Alex) I support the conspiracy theories. In my opinion the 9/11 attacks might have been a conspiracy on the highest levels of the Us government. On the one hand, George Bush's reaction was too confusing: the only thing he did was keep reading a tale in a primary school.
(Eduardo): If you ask whether I support the conspiracy theories or not, I wouldn' t know what to answer. I have mixed feelings, and I don't think we' ll ever find the truth. When president Bush was told about the attacks, his reaction wasn' t the one you could expect: he seemed puzzled and confused. As far as the Saudi evacuation is concerned, I think that, if they were involved, they would have escaped before the attack.
(Alex): The three arguments to support the conspiracy theories are:
-the first one is the close relationship between the Saudis and the Bush family.
-the second one is the fact that the Pentagon might have been hit by a missile launched by the US army.
-Bush might have taken advantage of the attacks: he might have been looking for an excuse to legitimize the war against Iraq.
(peter): In my opinion there is no conpiracy because i think that no government would have distroyed their best buildings and make terror in their citizens. I think that the Saudis flights over the US were allowed 'cause the sauidis might have been considered suspicious by everyone. That's why they got special treatments, 'cause they are from the royal family and didn't want to have problems.
(juan ) key individuals within the government might have been implicated in the frame-up
had previous knowlage of the attack and they ignore them on a .... America's defence.
- the demolition experts said that there was a difference between an attack and an accident
