Central Asia Journal No. 64

 

Good Versus Evil:

Argument to Begin Global War on Terrorism

 

Prof. Dr. Sarfraz Khan*

& Shuja Ahmad**

 Aim

 

This article argues that Good versus Evil (Us versus Them) has been a commonly forwarded argument, in times of War on Terror. Good versus Evil is a complex argument, involving numerous fallacies: false cause, poisoning the well, appeal to force, appeal to pity, appeal to fear, begging the question, slippery slope, false dilemma, etc. It also argues that Good versus Evil argument has been instrumental in framing the case to begin War on Terror in Afghanistan as well as a Global War on Terror. We also argue that once President Bush set the Good versus Evil frame, committing other fallacies ensued. Many people did accept his subsequent arguments, though fallacious, without adequate evidential support.

 

Methodology

 

In order to accomplish this we employ logical method that develops non-formal standards, criteria and procedures, to analyse, interpret, evaluate, criticise and constructing of arguments in media discourse of President Bush. His speeches and some of his press conferences/briefings between 9/11/2001 and 10/7/2001 (both dates included) are taken into account. On 9/11 World Trade Center was attacked and on 10/7 Bush formally ordered the War on Terror against Afghanistan.

Logic differentiates what persuades people to accept an argument from what should persuade people to accept an argument. There exists a general consensus that in logical sense of the term, an argument may involve correct or incorrect reasoning and the job of logic is to develop such methods and techniques which differentiate correct reasoning from incorrect.

According to J. E Tiles both Plato and Aristotle

clearly believed that questions of what will as a matter of fact change people’s minds should be subordinated to questions of what should change people’s mind… philosophy was, from a very early stage in its history, bound up with idea that there were better and worse arguments or reasons- where ‘better’ did not just mean ‘effective in changing people’s minds’.

 

Arguments can change people’s mind, i.e. the way they understand reality. For Sproule,

One possible effect of an argument is to change the direction of our judgment about something.... In most cases the messages were designed with the hope that the symbols would prompt a change in people’s thinking and action.

 

He believes that arguments can have; belief effects, attitude effects, value effects. Consequently, if an argument effects and changes ones belief, attitude and values his/her behaviour/action may change too.

Polycarp Ikuenobe argues

Argumentation involves the method of persuading or establishing for ourselves and others that a proposition, as the conclusion of an argument, has adequate evidential basis for its acceptance.

 

He argues, citing Fogelin and Sinott- Armstrong that arguments perform a number of functions which are to justify, refute, explain, simplify, systematize, excuse, persuade, and inform. He further argues, one of the most important elements in all these functions is,

… epistemic: to prove a point or make it understandable in order to persuade.

 

An arguer may not state all statements with an idea that, listeners already have knowledge about the issue and will supply the missing links. Aristotle calls this idea Enthymeme. In Rhetoric, he argues,

The enthymeme must consist of few propositions…for if any of these propositions is a familiar fact, there is no need even to mention it; the hearer adds it himself.

 

Some times an arguer does not state all premises deliberately, just to create ambiguity and to mislead the audience. Politicians have been using such reasoning in times of war to persuade people to accept fallacious arguments. Arguers also use metaphors to frame the discussion.

For Lakoff and Johnson,

Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature… The essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another.

 

For example, we understand arguments as war, time as money and love as journey etc., they state, and argue that we are normally not aware of our conceptual system and language can help us understand this. A frame, for them, is a conceptual structure used in thinking. Metaphors and images evoke frames, e.g., elephant evokes the image and certain knowledge of an elephant.  Every word defined in a frame also evokes the frame, e. g., trunk evokes the frame of an elephant. ‘He attacked my argument’, evokes ‘war frame', for, ‘attack’ is a word used in ‘war frame’. Negating a frame also evokes a frame, e.g., if one is asked not to think of an elephant, he/she shall begin thinking of an elephant. And evoking a frame strengthens the frame, asserts Lakoff.

Logic can be both formal and informal. Formal logic deals with formal systems of logic. These systems help in proving validity/invalidity of arguments. Ralph H. Johnson argues that formal logicstudies the entailment relationship between propositions. The main focus of formal logic is deductive arguments. Informal logic, on the other hand, deals with arguments in natural language. Informal logic may be defined as,

The attempt to develop a logic that can analyze and assess the "informal" reasoning that occurs in natural language contexts in, for example, political debate, legal proceedings, social commentary, and the opinion pieces featured in the mass media (in newspapers, magazines, television, the Internet, and so on).

 

For Johnson and Blair 

Informal logic designates that branch of logic whose task is to develop non-formal standards, criteria, procedures for the analysis, interpretation, evaluation, criticism and construction of argumentation in everyday discourse.

 

Thus, informal logic evaluates the arguments in natural language- arguments which appear in everyday discourse, like in politics, media, advertising etc.

Argument that commits fallacy is called, fallacious.

Fallacy is an error in reasoning…Fallacy is a type of an argument that may seem to be correct, but that proves, on examination, not to be so.  

Informal logic, discusses informal fallacies. Some important theories of informal fallacies include: Pragma- dialectical theory, Bayesian theory and the theory of Polycarp Ikuenobe etc.

Pragma- dialectical theory emphasises more the context of an argument, for Eveline T. Feteris,

The pragma-dialectical theory offers a systematic theoretical basis for developing a model for the analysis and evaluation of argumentation in particular contexts.

 

Pragma-dialectical theory treats arguments as dialogue in a context; fallacies arise if one of the participants makes fallacious moves in order to win the argument.

The Bayesian theory, not only emphasizes the context, but argues that contents also play a vital role in determining the strength and fallaciousness of an argument. Ulrike Hahn and Mike Oaksford argue,

pragma-dialectical considerations alone are not sufficient to explain the fallacies… it is not just context that affects the strength of an argument of a particular structure as put forth by pragma-dialectical theories, but rather that strength varies as a function of content.

 

Thus, an argument can commit an informal fallacy owing to inadequate context, content or both.

The theory propounded by Polycarp Ikuenobe argues,

My theory of fallacies is fundamentally epistemic: a fallacy is a failure to provide adequate proof for a belief. However, the failure is disguised in various forms using different strategies to make a proof look adequate.

 

Whatever the theory of fallacies, it is evident; a fallacy is an error in reasoning. The most common categories of informal fallacies discussed in historical literature on informal fallacies have been listed as: Relevance, Presumption, Ambiguity, and Weak Induction.

Fallacies Committed by President G. W. Bush

 

Before discussing in detail the fallacious arguments in the war on terror, let us state in very unequivocal terms, that attacks on World Trade Center and other places resulting in loss of innocent civilian lives are condemnable.

On 11 September 2001 four American planes were hijacked. The hijackers crashed two of the planes into World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon and the last one crashed in Pennsylvania. These attacks were declared as acts of war, and world heard statements and phrases like, ‘We are at War’, ‘America under Attack’, ‘War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder’. (See Bush’s speeches below):

George Lakoff and Evan Frisch assert,

[L]anguage matters, because it can determine how we think and act

 

They argue that war metaphor was used for domestic political purposes and defined as the only way to defend the country. Hence, arguing against it could be taken as unpatriotic. The September 11 events were defined in such an emotionally charged language and the persuasive definitions and metaphors were used so widely that it appears as if the attacks were really acts of war and it was reasonable to start a war against terror. Zarefsky calls it,

[T]he power of persuasive definition.

 

Chomsky argues, it was not an issue not to punish the people who were behind 9/11 terrorist attack. The actual argument was how to punish? The argument, first to provide Taliban with an evidence that Osama has a link with 9/11 attacks, then employing diplomatic pressure to hand him over to UN, and finally prosecuting him and other terrorists according to international law, was completely ignored by Washington.

Our argument is that instead of providing, international community and the people of USA, the irrefutable evidence that – who did it, Bush tried to evoke the emotions of the people, probably having some other agenda. We are certain that he committed numerous fallacies: to begin with ‘Good versus Evil’. He set out a context in his first few speeches, arguing, USA with her allies has to fight against Evil forces – Axis of evil. Ensuing fallacies remained unnoticed as fear and a determination to fight and winning the war against evil gripped the citizenry.

Good versus Evil argument has been a very effective tool of political leaders’ to persuade public in favour of war. George Lakoff explains in detail, how use of metaphor ‘evil’ works in an argument:

The enemy of evil is good. If our enemy is evil, we are inherently good. Good is our essential nature and what we do in the battle against evil is good... Indeed, performing lesser evils in the name of good is justified—"lesser" evils like curtailing individual liberties, sanctioning political assassinations, overthrowing governments, torture, hiring criminals, and "collateral damage".

 

Let us analyze, evaluate, interpret and criticize some of the premises provided by President Bush, following 9/11 attacks. These premises constructed many fallacious arguments to frame the case for fighting War on Terror in Afghanistan and the Global War against Terror (GWAT). Almost every speech of President Bush began with what happened on 9/11, stating- we have been attacked by a destructive and barbaric evil. He evokes the pictures of miseries on 9/11, doing so he evokes fear in public, making people think and argue the way he wanted them to.

 

9/11 2001, The Day

 

Good evening. Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. The victims were in airplanes, or in their offices; secretaries, businessmen and women, military and federal workers; moms and dads, friends and neighbors. Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror.

This is the opening paragraph of his first address to the nation, after 9/11 incident. ‘Our way of life’, ‘our very freedom’, the most cherished ideas of civilized people are under attack. The victims were weak innocent people, ‘people who were on airplanes, or in their offices; secretaries, businessmen and women, military and federal workers; moms and dads, friends and neighbors’ their lives have been ended by ‘evil, despicable acts of terror’.

The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts…We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.

 

Once again ‘evil acts’, this time he added, ‘those who harbor them’, are also terrorist and evil. Ivie and Giner argue in,

Americans think ourselves too modern and rational to believe in the medieval devil, but the fire and destruction of 9/11 made us susceptible to the suggestion that the devil and his legion (Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda army) had perpetrated the event. In the nation’s language and history, in its arts and spirituality, beneath the cornerstone of America’s political and economic systems, the devil lies shallowly buried, ready to surface at any moment that he is summoned or conjured.

 

This reveals, the President uses evil versus good argument to make a case for war against terror and he was successful because Americans already had a frame of evil that could be evoked any time.

Frame of evil can be evoked by using words and phrases like: ‘inhuman and perverted’, ‘murderers’ ‘shadows’, ‘darkness’, ‘prey’, ‘terror’, ‘massive cruelty’, ‘images of fire and ashes’, ‘horror’, ‘hate’, ‘evil folks’, ‘different enemy’, ‘destruction’, ‘evil doer’, etc. Moreover, in democratic societies, ‘fascism’, ‘Nazism’, ‘totalitarianism’, can also evoke the frame of evil. On the other hand, ‘peace’, ‘freedom’, ‘hero’, ‘democracy’, ‘civilized’, ‘justice’, ‘shine’, ‘responsibility’, ‘security’, ‘friends’ ‘unity’, ‘faith’, ‘love’ etc., evoke the frame of good.

Bush, in the same speech, further informed:

America and our friends and allies join with all those who want peace and security in the world, and we stand together to win the war against terrorism… we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world.

 

He quoted a verse:

Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me. Psalm 23.

 

It demonstrates, ‘America and our friends and allies’ (good people) join together to make an alliance to fight the terrorists (evil). They are not afraid as God is with them; they are determined to defend freedom and all good things of the good civilized people.

Jeff Lewis opines,

Bush attributes to the events a cosmological meaning, one which elevates the victims as heroes and condemns the perpetrators as evil, inhuman and perverted by a hatred…

 

The President framed the war arguments in a religious diction, arguing that victims are heroes and the people behind the attacks are evil, i.e., inhuman, do not care about innocent lives, and are dominated by hatred.

 

9/12/2001

 

The deliberate and deadly attacks which were carried out yesterday against our country were more than acts of terror. They were acts of war. This will require our country to unite in steadfast determination and resolve.  Freedom and democracy are under attack.  

 

The very next day the president argued that yesterday’s attacks were ‘acts of war’ and ‘freedom and democracy are under attack’, therefore, it ‘require our country to unite’. It is beyond understanding: how freedom and democracy were under attack? Jeff Lewis argues,

The attacks on New York and Washington produced a significant rupture in the meaning of America. President Bush’s discourses sought to fill this void with convocation to patriotism and a divinely inspired retribution. ‘Freedom’ and ‘democracy’ became central discourses within this convocation. Much of this discourse, however, obscures the very significant American mission which seeks to exert greater control over the world’s oil resources

 

The President argued, as if Democracy and Freedom were attacked and it’s the divine responsibly of the good people to punish the attackers, though the real purpose of war has been to control the world oil resources.

Geroge Lakoff argues, the initial frame used by Bush and his administration was of ‘crime and punishment’. This frame entailed ‘law, trail, sentencing etc., but very soon they realized, it will not work and they started reframing the debate to war metaphor.  This new metaphor entailed: causalities, enemies, military action, and war powers.

Lakoff argues, 

The phrase “War on Terror” was chosen with care. “War” is a crucial term. It evokes a war frame, and with it, the idea that the nation is under military attack – an attack that can only be defended militarily, by use of armies, planes, bombs, and so on. The war frame includes special war powers for the president, who becomes commander in chief. It evokes unquestioned patriotism, and the idea that of lack of support for the war effort is treasonous. It forces Congress to give unlimited powers to the President, lest detractors be called unpatriotic. And the war frame includes an end to the war – winning the war, mission accomplished!

 

This demonstrates war metaphor was used to frame the argument to begin a war. It served many purposes as Lakoff points: special war powers to the President, evoked unquestioned patriotism, a determination to fight and win the war and accomplishment of mission. The President used both war and evil metaphors framing the discussion to portray global war on terror as a war against global evil. Therefore, he asked all the freedom loving people of the world to fight this war.

President Bush elaborated:

The American people need to know that we're facing a different enemy that we have ever faced.  This enemy hides in shadows, and has no regard for human life. This is an enemy who preys on innocent and unsuspecting people, runs for cover...This is an enemy that thinks its harbors are safe. But they won't be safe forever… This enemy attacked not just our people, but all freedom-loving people everywhere in the world. The United States of America will use all our resources to conquer this enemy. We will rally the world…This battle will take time and resolve. But make no mistake about it: we will win.

 

The President’s argument is: our fight is not with an ordinary human enemy, the enemy is evil, ‘a different enemy’ who ‘hides’ in ‘shadows’ and has no regard for ‘human life’, therefore it ‘preys’ on ‘innocent unsuspecting people’ everywhere in the world.

 This clearly demonstrates that enemy has no reason and has no sense of morality what so ever. Enemy has been harbored by ‘enemy’s friends’. Enemy attacked not only the people of USA but ‘all freedom loving people’. This battle ‘will take time’ but ‘we will win’ for we will use ‘all our resources to conquer the enemy’.

The President, dubbed enemies as evil and then committed fallacy of false generalization. Since he jumped to the conclusion and exaggerated the facts- it was not an attack on ‘all freedom loving people’. Fallacy of false generalization is committed, if an arguer moves from a too small or not randomly selected sample, to a generalization. Moreover, his declaration that the battle ‘will take time’ and raising false hopes of people, saying, ‘we will win’, committed fallacy of positive consequences, as well. In an argument from consequences, an arguer cites positive or negative consequences as reasons to accept or reject an argument. This type of reasoning is not always fallacious, but it commits fallacy when the consequences are cited, as reasons, without any evidential support, and the probability of their occurrence is very weak.

The President has frequently argued, we (good) have to fight against evil, for we will win this war (argument from positive consequences) and if we (good) do not fight this war, then evil will win and an age of terror will begin (argument from negative consequences). 

The President continued:

I am sending to Congress a request for emergency funding authority, so that we... respond to this tragedy, and to protect our national security.

 

In the above context it seems very reasonable: since the country is at war with an evil enemy, therefore, the President must be given ‘emergency funding authority’, to ‘protract our national security’. President G.W Bush ended his speech with these words:

I want to thank the members of Congress for their unity and support. America is united. The freedom-loving nations of the world stand by our side. This will be a monumental struggle of good versus evil. But good will prevail.

 

On the same day the President visited Pentagon, he started his speech with the same old, familiar words: ‘the victims’, ‘sacrifices made by the people’, ‘people donating the blood’ etc, then he said:

Coming here makes me sad, on the one hand; it also makes me angry. Our country will, however, not be cowed by terrorists, by people who don't share the same values we share, by people who are willing to destroy people's lives because we embrace freedom.

 

Good and powerful nations must not be ‘cowed by terrorists’. Moreover, terrorists are evil they don’t share with us some important values like ‘Freedom and Democracy’; therefore, they have attacked us- Fallacy of single cause or over simplified cause. The fallacy is committed if it is argued that an event has a single cause while there are other relevant causes too, and the arguer ignores other causes, selecting only one.

 

9/13/2001

 

On 13 September, the President argued:

On Tuesday morning, September 11, 2001, terrorists attacked America in a series of despicable acts of war… Civilized people around the world denounce the evildoers who devised and executed these terrible attacks. Justice demands that those who helped or harbored the terrorists be punished -- and punished severely. The enormity of their evil demands it. We will use all the resources of the United States and our cooperating friends and allies to pursue those responsible for this evil, until justice is done… In time, we will find healing and recovery; and, in the face of all this evil, we remain strong and united, "one Nation under God."

 

Repeating the incident of 9/11 once again, he declared, ‘civilized people’ around the world denounced the ‘evil doers’. He justified severe punishment to ‘evil doers’ and ‘their friends’ who ‘harbor them’. Therefore USA shall use ‘all the resources’ and ‘cooperating friends and allies’ to pursue the ‘evil’. Since evil has attacked USA, therefore, USA must fight back and destroy all the evil, no other justification for war on terror is required.

0n 12 September 2001 the President sent a letter to the speaker of the House of Representatives; we have underlined some of the words and sentences of the text in order to understand the letter.

Yesterday, evil and despicable acts of terror were perpetrated against our fellow citizens. Our way of life, indeed our very freedom, came under attack. Our first priority is to respond swiftly and surely. We need to do so in a way that will make Americans proud, especially those heroes who are struggling so valiantly to deal with yesterday's tragedy…  Now Congress must act.  I ask the Congress to immediately pass and send to me the enclosed request for $20,000,000,000 in FY 2001 emergency appropriations to provide resources to address the terrorist attacks on the United States that occurred on September 11, 2001, and the consequences of such attacks.  Passing this supplemental appropriations bill without delay will send a powerful signal of unity to our fellow Americans and to the world.  If additional resources are necessary, I will forward another request for additional funding.

Since, ‘our way of life, ‘our freedom’ has been attacked by evil, our ‘first priority’ is to respond in a way that makes ‘heroes’ proud. Moreover, the President, Commander in Chief, in times of war, commands Congress to act, i.e., ‘immediately’, ‘must’ pass and send $20,000,000,000. This act will send a ‘powerful signal’ to the world that ‘Americans are United’ to fight against ‘evil terrorist’- the fallacy of positive consequences. War against evil has given: special war powers to the President, and has evoked unquestioned obedience to authority.

 

9/14/2001

 

On 14 September the President started his speech with these words which need no further explanation:

We are here in the middle hour of our grief… On Tuesday, our country was attacked with deliberate and massive cruelty.  We have seen the images of fire and ashes, and bent steel…  Now come the names, the list of casualties we are only beginning to read... We will linger over them, and learn their stories… and many Americans will weep.

 

In his last few speeches the President has constructed the good versus evil argument (No irrefutable evidence so for). The context is set and arguments forwarded by the President will be understood by the public in the light of good versus evil. Obviously, it is very difficult to differentiate good arguments from bad arguments in this scenario.

President Bush, now, comes to the responsibility on the United States of America:

[O]ur responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil… War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder.  This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger.  This conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others.  It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing…unity against terror is now extending across the world.

 

It is clear that after evoking the emotions of the people the President is going to begin a war against ‘stealth and deceit and murderous enemy’ against an enemy that has ‘waged war’ against USA. His argument is, it is the enemy who has already started a war, USA will just respond to the situation and the ‘unity against terror’ is extending.

David Zarefsky, opines that declaring terrorists incidentsof September 11 as ‘acts of war’ is one of the most significant case of persuasive definition. He argues,

But wars are understood as military conflicts between nation-states. Yet no nation, not even Afghanistan, claimed responsibility for the attacks. No nation declared war against the United States; neither did the United States against any other nation.

 

This demonstrates war involves a military conflict between nation-states (political communities which either are states or intend to become states). No nation had declared war against USA but the President was projecting the situation as if an Evil enemy has waged war against America and it’s necessary to fight this war. (How 9/11 events are a war and whatever goes on in other parts of the world, say Gaza, a ‘conflict or crisis in the middle east’ ?).

 

9/15/2001

 

On 15 September the President in, A Radio Address to the Nation, President argued:

This is a conflict without battlefields or beachheads, a conflict with opponents who believe they are invisible… they will discover what others in the past have learned:  Those who make war against the United States have chosen their own destruction.  Victory against terrorism will not take place in a single battle, but in a series of decisive actions against terrorist organizations and those who harbor and support them… We are planning a broad and sustained campaign to secure our country and eradicate the evil of terrorism … the political parties and both Houses of Congress have shown a remarkable unity… we will prevail.

 

Americans are ‘united’ against the ‘evil enemy’. This demonstrates this war is ‘without battlefields’ for the enemy believes they are ‘invisible’, hence, it is a ‘different type of war’ which the world has never seen before. However, the enemy will be defeated like ‘others in the past’. Victory will not take place in a ‘single battle’ rather in a ‘series of decisive actions’ against the enemy and those who ‘harbor and support them’- Victory means ‘eradication of terrorism’.

President Bush committed fallacy of false or weak analogy, i.e., the enemy will be defeated because in the past Americans have defeated their enemies. Fallacy of weak analogy is committed, if a conclusion is inferred on the basis of irrelevant similarities between the two or more, or the mentioned similarities are too weak to support the conclusion. The enemy and the war, this time, was very different from the past enemies and wars. This has been mentioned by the President in almost every speech. No analogy, between this Evil enemy and the past enemies of USA can be drawn. Moreover, the President jumped to another conclusion, ‘victory will not take place in one single battle’ and provides too ambiguous a definition of victory- ‘eradication of evil of terrorism’.

This invites some serious questions: How president knew from the outset that it’s a different war, not to be decided in one single decisive battle? What made the President so sure that finally ‘evil of terrorism’ will be ‘eradicated’?

I am going to describe to our leadership what I saw:  the wreckage of New York City, the signs of the first battle of war… we will find those who did it; we will smoke them out of their holes; we will get them running and we'll bring them to justice.  We will not only deal with those who dare attack America, we will deal with those who harbor them and feed them and house them…Make no mistake about it:  underneath our tears is the strong determination of America to win this war.  And we will win it.

 

We will ‘smoke them out from their holes’ and we will ‘get them running’ as if the evil enemy is not human being, for it hides in ‘holes’, and the President is going to hunt it. He argued again, ‘and we will win it’, committing fallacy of positive consequences.

 

9/16/2001

 

On 16 September, the President made a small speech and responded to questions. He said:

Our nation was horrified, but it's not going to be terrorized. We're a great nation… We're a nation that can't be cowed by evil-doers... We will rid the world of the evil-doers.  We will call together freedom loving people to fight terrorism…We've been warned there are evil people in this world.  We've been warned so vividly - and we'll be alert.  Your government is alert… evil folks still lurk out there.

 

We should be ‘afraid’ of the ‘evil-doers’, who still ‘lurk out there’ – evokes fear amongst his audience. People under the emotion of fear are unable to think, and argue rationally, their judgments are badly affected. Aristotle opines,

The Emotions are all those feelings that so change men as to affect their judgments, and that are also attended by pain or pleasure. Such are anger, pity, fear and the like, with their opposites… Fear may be defined as a pain or disturbance due to a mental picture of some destructive or painful evil in the future

Aristotle does not hold that emotions make us irrational. But he does hold that if our emotions are excessive or deficient, as is often the case when we have vices or are morally immature, we are likely to make inappropriate choices, choices that fall short of virtue.

 

In an answer to the question:

Do you believe Osama bin Laden's denial that he had anything to do with this?

[President replied]: No question he is the prime suspect.  No question about that.

 

A journalist enquired about the rights of American citizens following this new situation. The President instead of answering referred the question to the Attorney General, however made certain remarks:

we’re facing a new kind of enemy, somebody so barbaric …, we need to be alert to the fact that these evil-doers still exist.  We haven't seen this kind of barbarism in a long period of time… a new kind of evil.  And we understand… This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while.  

 

In his answer President made some very clear points regarding understanding of American people of, a new kind of ‘barbaric enemy a new kind of evil’ who ‘still exist’, this ‘crusade’ is going to ‘take a while’.

Once good versus evil argument is forwarded, it helps politicians to commit other fallacies in the hope that fallacious arguments can be accepted by the public, for the public is taken over by fear.

 

9/17/2001

 

[L]et me quote from the Koran, itself:  In the long run, evil in the extreme will be the end of those who do evil.  For that they rejected the signs of Allah and held them up to ridicule… The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam.  That's not what Islam is all about.  Islam is peace.  These terrorists don't represent peace.  They represent evil and war.

 

Once again good versus evil argument was repeated.

 

9/18/ 2001

 

In the week since the attack, our compassion and generous citizens have led the first phase in the war on terrorism…  But we're too great a nation to allow the evil-doers to affect our soul and our spirit.

 

‘Citizens’ have led the ‘first Phase in the war’ -there was no war going on, still the President wants people to think as if they are actually fighting a war, however, ‘evil doers’ were not effecting ‘our soul and Sprit’. In religious societies it is believed that evil attacks the soul and sprit of a person. Another way to prove, good people were fighting a war against evil who tried to attack their souls and sprit.

 

9/19/2001

 

On 19 September President Bush answered a question and committed fallacies of: missing the point and begging the question. Fallacy of missing the point is committed when an arguer provides grounds for one conclusion but infers an irrelevant conclusion, by vaguely supporting an unrelated conclusion with the premises. Polycarp Ikuenobe explains that begging the question can be committed in two ways:

(1) when the conclusion, which may be contentious because there is no reasonable evidence to make it acceptable, thus, it is in need of proof, is somehow illegitimately contained in or assumed by the premises: the fact that it is illegitimately assumed implies that the point has not been proved, and (2) when the premises assume a controversial belief which is in need of proof as a basis for proving the conclusion.

 

Let us see, what the question was and how the President answered it.

Q.   Mr. President, since you've declared war against terrorism, there are a number of countries who seem to be saying, not so fast. China, in particular, said that any strike must be preceded by irrefutable evidence. Others have raised concerns about civilian casualties. So the first question is, are you now prepared to provide such irrefutable evidence to countries, and what in your mind is the biggest challenge that you face in trying to construct this coalition?

PRESIDENT BUSH:  Well, first of all, we'll do what we need to do to achieve the first objective of a long campaign. And the first objective is to bring people to justice who we feel like committed this particular set of atrocities, and to hold the organization accountable and to hold those who harbor them accountable. That's the first objective of a very long campaign.

David, I think that the real challenge for America and our allies in this effort is to do a couple of things: One, condition the world, starting with our own country, that this will be a different kind of battle, series of battles; that they will be fought visibly sometimes, and sometimes we'll never see what may be taking place; that the -- and that we fully understand that some nations will be comfortable supporting overt activities, some nations will be comfortable supporting covert activities, some nations will only be comfortable in providing information, others will be helpful and only feel comfortable helping on financial matters.  I understand that.  Thirdly, as these various -- as the campaign evolves, some nations may take a more active role than others.

The mind-set of war must change.  It is a different type of battle. It's a different type of battlefield… the mission is to root out terrorist activities.

 

If we try to understand the question, the person whose name was David was asking about three things: 1. whether there is an irrefutable evidence that links al Qaeda, and specifically Osama bin Laden, to these attacks, 2. whether probable civilian casualties have been considered, and 3., what is the biggest challenge that you face in trying to construct this coalition.

President Bush has not answered any of the questions yet. Instead of answering these basic questions, he is trying to evoke and reinforce the frame of Evil in the mind of his audience, saying it is a ‘different kind of war’, ‘series of Battles, which will be ‘fought visibly’ sometimes and ….’ And then he discussed how other nations will feel and cooperate.

     Clearly, one of our focuses is to get people out of their caves, smoke them out, get them moving and get them … But we're also focused, and we recognize that the al Qaeda organization exists in some 60-plus countries, and we're beginning to work with other nations that are receptive to the notion of fighting terrorism…We fully understand that certain NGOs, nongovernmental organizations, serve as fronts, as a funding mechanism for terrorist organizations.  We expect there to be activity on those fronts, as well.

     So the challenge is to redefine the terms of the conflict, the campaign…  There's certain impatience with war of the past.  People demand a certain clarity of a specific battlefield… this is a new type of struggle.  It's really the first series of battles in the 21st century.

… terrorism knows no borders… but it does have a common ideology, and that is they hate freedom, and they hate freedom-loving people.  And they particularly hate America at this moment. But many leaders understand that what happened in New York City and Washington, D.C. could have easily have happened in their capital, as well.

It's a long answer to a short question.

 

The president again framed the discussion by stating, it is a ‘different type of war……’ and one of the focuses is to ‘get people out of their caves’ as if they are animals or snakes. Lakoff reveals,

The conceptual metaphors here are Moral Is Up; Immoral Is Down (they are lowly) and Immoral People Are Animals (that live close to the ground).

 

The President and his friends repeatedly used such metaphor for framing purpose. They tried to convince the audience of the world that their evil enemy is immoral, and immoral people are animals, as they live close to the ground. 

David, probably, would be waiting for the answers and Mr. President is committing the fallacy of missing the point all the way.

And then a very important thing which made War on Terror, a Global War on Terror, ‘al Qaeda organization exists in some 60-plus countries’. This is a very serious case of begging the question. ‘Providing irrefutable evidence against the people who were blamed’, was already in need of an adequate proof, he instead of providing a proof made another very big claim which has never been proved by him and his administration.

He talked about some NGOs…, then declared, ‘Terrorist knows no borders’ they ‘hate freedom’. President while providing a ground for other nations to join the coalition answered at least one question directly, but in a very fallacious way (appeal to fear) ‘what happened in New York City and Washington, D.C. could have easily have happened in their capital, as well’.

David repeated the question,

Q    Can I follow on one point?  Do you to your mind have irrefutable evidence that links al Qaeda, and specifically Osama bin Laden to these attacks?

PRESIDENT BUSH:  When we take action, we will take action because we believe -- because we know we'll be on the right.  And I want to remind people that there have been terrorist activities on America in the past, as well…

It is a war against terrorist activities. Our nation must do everything we can to protect the homeland…

But the best way to make sure that America is safe, the people of Indonesia are safe, is to find terrorism at its roots and to root it out, to get them out of their caves and get them moving, cut off their finances, and hold them accountable.

 

This time the President did not bother to answer it even in a vague manner. He talked at length without answering the question. However, President successfully framed an argument: terrorist are present in more than sixty countries and the President wants to eliminate terrorism from the world, hence, war on terror is going to be a war of global reach- Global War on Terror begins. Susan Sontag opines that real wars are not metaphors and real wars have a beginning and an end, but this war on terrorism will never end. She argues war on terror is not a war; it is a way to expand the use of American power.

 

9/20/2001

 

On 20 September, The President addressed the joint session of Congress and the American People. He began with the ‘victims’ and ‘sufferings’ and ‘courage’ shown by the people:

On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country.  … night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack….The evidence we have gathered all points to a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as al Qaeda… The terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinction among military and civilians, including women and children.

 

Remember, just one day before the President had nothing to say when he was asked about the ‘irrefutable evidence’.

There are thousands of these terrorists in more than 60 countries.  They are recruited from their own nations and neighborhoods and brought to camps in places like Afghanistan, where they are trained in the tactics of terror.  They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction.

 

The President once again said, ‘more than 60 countries’. War on terror had become a Global War on Terror, for the ‘evil’ had a presence in more than 60 countries.

The leadership of al Qaeda has great influence in Afghanistan and supports the Taliban regime in controlling most of that country.  In Afghanistan, we see al Qaeda's vision for the world.

 

Though, the Bush’s War on Terror argument commits many fallacies such as: Missing the point, Begging the question, Appeal to fear, Fallacies of positive and negative consequences, Weak analogy, Hasty generalization, Appeal to force and appeal to pity, etc. Its conclusion is clear: War on Terror begins from Afghanistan but soon will become a ‘war of global reach’.

The President, then, talked about the ‘miseries’ of the weak and innocent people who are ruled by brutal evil- the terrorists (the President used the same argument when he attacked Iraq.)

Afghanistan's people have been brutalized -- many are starving and many have fled.  Women are not allowed to attend school.  You can be jailed for owning a television.  Religion can be practiced only as their leaders dictate.  A man can be jailed in Afghanistan if his beard is not long enough…  By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder.

 

The President continues committing fallacy of appeal to pity.

Aristotle defines pity as,

a feeling of pain caused by the sight of some evil, destructive or painful, which befalls one who does not deserve it, and which we might expect to befall ourselves or some friend of ours, and moreover to befall us soon.

Seeing someone in suffering evokes feeling of pity, a natural emotional response to the situation. Those not feeling pity are considered indifferent and in some cases even immoral. Fallacy of pity is committed when instead of providing logical grounds, evoking pity is attempted. Robert H. Kimball argues,

I think the best justification for calling appeal to pity a fallacy – as inducing an extreme emotive response that overpowers judicious thinking and hence is an unreliable guide to right action.

 

The president argued the people of Afghanistan have been brutalized by evil; people are living in a very miserable condition under Taliban regime who is committing murder. Woman cannot attend the school, etc. All these are good premises to evoke pity, the un-stated conclusion of this argument can be: therefore we should help them and free them from evil, by attacking and eradicating the evil. 

And tonight, the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban:  Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of al Qaeda who hide in your land.  Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens, you have unjustly imprisoned.  Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country.  Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and handover every terrorist, and every person in their support structure, to appropriate authorities.  Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps,  …These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion.  The Taliban must act, and act immediately.  They will handover the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.

 

The argument is a classical example of fallacy, appeal to force. It is committed when argued; in case of non acceptance (read non compliance) of argument (read demands), consequences (read resort to force, threat) shall follow.  The list of demands had been ‘not open to negotiation’, for, evil has no faith, no reason, no morality. Hence, entering into negotiations with evil is not found necessary. They must ‘act immediately’, if Taliban don’t want to ‘share in their fate’. Neither need of evidence, nor negotiations- accept the might, or face the music.

Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.  Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there.  It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.

 

It announces that War on Terror will be a very lengthy war, for, it will not end until ‘every terrorist group of global reach’ has been ‘found, stopped and defeated’. Terror, Terrorism, and Terrorist are ambiguous terms, since there are no commonly accepted definitions of these terms. Hence, it is difficult to understand, what is meant by ‘terrorist of global reach’.

 

For Jeffrey Record   

The challenge of grasping the nature and parameters of the GWOT is certainly not eased by the absence of a commonly accepted definition of terrorism or by the depiction of the GWOT as a Manichaean struggle between good and evil, “us” versus “them.”

 

The President argued that terrorists hate USA because:

They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government.  Their leaders are self-appointed.  They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.

 

Again fallacy of False cause- terrorists, like all evils, are tyrant, hate freedom and freedom loving people, hence, attacked America.

They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan.  They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East.  They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa.

Begging the question- All claims need proof and hardly any of the above mentioned countries have democratically elected governments or bestow upon their citizens above cited freedoms. These are not small claims made by men of street; instead are colossal claims by the President of the United States of America.

President also committed fallacy of weak analogy by exaggerating the threat:

We have seen their kind before.  They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century.  By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions -- by abandoning every value except the will to power -- they follow in the path of fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism.  And they will follow that path all the way, to where it ends:  in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies.

 

Fallacy of weak analogy, in a single paragraph, the President concluded that they are like fascists, Nazis and totalitarians of the 20^th century. Therefore, according to the President, what was true for them is also true for Taliban and for all other countries, supporting and/or supported by terrorists.

Further, the President announced the methodology of forming a ‘coalition’ of ‘all good people in the world’.

Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

 

A classic example of false dilemma, either you are with us or against us, no other alternative. This fallacy is committed if an arguer offers an incomplete range of alternatives (normally two- in such a way, that it appears as if they are jointly exhaustive/as if no other alternative exists), and one is asked to chose one of them.  The war on terror will clearly divide the world into two halves: those who are with Bush- the representative and leader of good, and those who are against Bush- the evil murderers, terrorists.

This is not, however, just America's fight.  And what is at stake is not just America's freedom.  This is the world's fight.  This is civilization's fight.  This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom.

President Pervez Musharraf reveals his conversation with Colin Powell, who candidly stated,

‘you are either with us or against us.’ I took this as a blatant ultimatum.

 

Next day, he writes, Director General, Inter Services Intelligence (DGISI) told him on phone about his meeting with Richard Armitage, (then US Deputy Secretary of State):

In what has to be the most undiplomatic statement ever made, Armitage added to what Colin Powell had said to me and told the director general not only that we had to decide whether we were with America or with terrorists, but that if we chose the terrorist, then we should be prepared to be bombed back to the stone Age. This was a shockingly barefaced threat…

 

This demonstrates while saying, ‘either you are with us or against us’, Bush and his administration not only committed the fallacy of false dilemma, but also of appeal to force.

Subsequently, the President froze assets of all the ‘terrorist of the global reach’ and asked other countries to do the same or face the consequences. - Again, an instance of appeal to force.

 

9/25/2001

 

On 25 September, the President and Prime Minster of Japan held a press conference. A journalist enquired the President:

… according to opinion poll, about 90 percent of the Japanese are concerned that Japan support of the U.S. military action could trigger terrorist attacks on Japan, itself.  Do you have anything to say to them to, to their concern?

PRESIDENT BUSH:  Well, I think this:  I think 100 percent of the Japanese people ought to understand that we're dealing with evil people who hate freedom and legitimate governments, and that now is the time for freedom-loving people to come together to fight terrorist activity… We can't let terrorism dictate our course of action… No threat, no threat will prevent freedom-loving people from defending freedom… This is good versus evil.  These are evildoers...  The only motivation is evil.  And the Prime Minister understands that, and the Japanese people, I think, understand that as well.

 

Once again, the President instead of answering the question, committed fallacy of missing the point: Japanese should understand that we are dealing with ‘evil people who hate freedom…’ so ‘freedom loving to come together and fight terrorist’. We can not let the terrorist ‘dictate our course of action’. This is ‘good versus evil’, ‘these are evil doers’, who have no ‘justification for their actions’. He committed missing the point again. Instead of giving reasons and answer to the question, he set out argument of his own, and gave reasons for his own position which had nothing to do with the original issue, i.e., the fear of Japanese people.

 

9/26/2001

 

On 26 September the President met with Muslim leaders and held another press conference:

I have told the nation more than once that ours is a war against evil, against extremists, that the teachings of Islam are the teachings of peace and good, and the al Qaeda organization is not an organization of good, an organization of peace.  It's an organization based upon hate and evil.

 

Responding to a question about Bin Laden, the President said:

I consider bin Laden an evil man.  ….  This is a man who's declared war on innocent people… doesn't mind destroying women and children… hates freedom.  This is an evil man…He has got evil goals.  And it's hard to think in conventional terms about a man so dominated by evil…

 

If a man is ‘evil’, ‘hates freedom’, kills ‘innocent’ men and women, then why to talk and argue with him? Why to listen to his point of view? A classical example of, ‘Poisoning the Well’. Walton discussing the fallacy of poisoning the well remarks:

[T]he poisoning the well type of ad hominem attack can be described as a tactic that diffuses a discussion by disqualifying the attacked person from taking further meaningful part in it with any credibility.

 

Next day (9/27/2001) the President while talking at O’Hare, repeated the same old story that it’s a ‘war against evil’ ‘will be a different war’,

We face a brand of evil, the likes of which we haven't seen in a long time in the world.  These are people who strike and hide, people who know no borders, … people who depend upon others…

 

The President’s attempt still is evoking and reinforcing the same frame.

 

9/28/2001

 

On 28 September, a journalist asked an important question in a press conference:

Q.   Mr. President, what's your reaction to word today that the Taliban says it has now located Osama bin Laden and has delivered an invitation to him to leave the country?

PRESIDENT:  …First, there is no negotiations with the Taliban…  And now they can act.  And it's not just Mr. bin Laden that we expect to see and brought to justice; it's everybody associated with his organization that's in Afghanistan.  And not only those directly associated with Mr. bin Laden, any terrorist that is housed and fed in Afghanistan needs to be handed over.  And finally, we expect there to be complete destruction of terrorist camps… That's what I told them; that's what I mean.  And we expect them -- we expect them to not only hear what I say, but to do something about it   …The al Qaeda people don't represent Islam, as far as America is concerned.  They represent evil.  They're evil people.

 

A very important question that the President should have answered clearly, on the contrary, he said, “no negotiations with Taliban”. Why President did not like to negotiate with the Talibans? Why public accepted this attitude? The answer has been: Talibans are friends of the world greatest Evil force; they are the people who harbor them, feed them. Evil has no reason and it accepts no justice. Moreover, it has no justification for its actions. Though negotiations in all civilized cultures are considered good and people are encouraged to negotiate with each other to solve their problems. However, negotiations with evil will give evil more time and it can become more dangerous, therefore, no negotiations with evil and friends of evil are recommended. Fallacy of Slippery Slope is committed. When, in a special context: P implies Q, and Q implies R, but R is bad/undesirable/against ones interest, although P and Q can be good, but in this special context P and Q are bad (since they imply R).

The President also argued about a very ambiguous list of people, whom Taliban should have handed over to USA. Can one imagine how it was possible, without a precise definition of terror or terrorist or terrorism- whom and how many should Taliban have handed over to USA??

 

9/29/2001

 

On 29 September the President on a Radio address reported to the nation:

This is a different kind of war, which we will wage aggressively, and methodically to disrupt and destroy terrorist activity. …We did not seek this conflict, but we will win it.  America will act deliberately and decisively, and the cause of freedom will prevail...

 

He told the nation, that army has been mobilized. The finances of the global terrorists have been frozen. He did not utter even a single word about ‘irrefutable evidence’, he did not find need to provide an evidence- war against evil argument, which he had been constructing for the last few days, was deemed enough- no further ‘reasons and justifications’ were required, and if there were any ‘evidences’, they were to be kept ‘secret’.

 

10/1/2001

 

On October first, the President claimed, ‘We are making progress’- a person is arrested, he said, although he was not an al Qaeda person but was a terrorist, ‘like them’– false analogy. He talked about the coalition and the support provided by many nations- and why ‘many nations’ should not have joined Bush; suffice to say, they were ‘either with US or with enemies’.

 

10/2/2001

 

On 2 October the President met some congressmen and answered a few questions. One of the questions had been:

Q    Mr. President, is the time running out on the Taliban regime?….

[The President replied], …there is no time table for the Taliban, just like there are no negotiations.  I have said that the Taliban must turn over al Qaeda organization living within Afghanistan, and must destroy the terrorist camps.  And they must do so, otherwise there will be a consequence... We'll act on our time, and we'll do it in a manner that not only secures the United States as best as possible, but makes the freedom in the world more likely to exist in the future.

 

Instead of giving reasons and a timetable, he turned to appeal to force, arguing ‘there is no time table’, as ‘there is no negotiations’, they must ‘act’, otherwise there will be a ‘consequence’.

 

10/4/2001

 

On 4 October, the President argued:

The evildoers struck, but they may have hurt our buildings… But they will not touch the soul of America. They cannot dim our spirit. …Americans understand that this is a different type of campaign; it's a different type of struggle to defeat an enemy that's sometimes hard to see, and sometimes hard to find. But what the enemy has found out is we're a determined people ….We built a vast coalition of nations from all around the world to join us -- nations which understand that what happened in New York and Washington could happen to them, as well. They understand it's now time to unite to defeat evil. …. America says, we don't care how you help, just help. Either you're for us, or you're against us…. we're talking to countries and banks and financial institutions, and saying either you're with us, or against us: cut off their money…. I will enforce the doctrine that says that if you house a terrorist, you're just as guilty as the terrorists themselves….. It's also the time to act... We need for there to be more tax cuts…. And we'll be tough and resolute as we unite, to make sure freedom stands, to rout out evil, to say to our children and grandchildren, we were bold enough to act, without tiring, so that you can live in a great land and in a peaceful world.

 

‘Evil doers’ cannot touch the ‘Soul and Sprit’ of the people. It is a ‘different war’ for the enemy is different, which ‘some times hide and hard to see’. In ‘different war against evil’, ‘either you are with us are with enemy’. The President warned not only the nations of the world but also the financial institutions of the world. Moreover, he also appealed to fear, saying, ‘what happened in New York and Washington could happen to them, as well’. This was President’s attempt of uniting all the good forces in the world to fight a global war on terror. The President’s doctrine also commits Genetic fallacy, if you are a friend of evil or harboring evil, you are also evil. He also committed fallacy of false cause.

On the same day, once again the President very forcefully constructed evil versus good argument.

I'm also here to announce an initiative to help the Afghan people in a time of crisis and in a time of need.  America will stand strong and will oppose the sponsors of terror.  And America will stand strong and help those people who are hurt by those regimes… …We are engaged in a noble cause.  And that is to say loud and clear to the evildoers that we reject you, that we will stand firm against terror, and that this great nation, along with many other nations, will defend freedom… a coalition of people all around the world who understand that the evil acts could have happened to them, just like they happened to us…out of this evil act will come good… After all, many of you understand the effects of terror…And the American people appreciate the heroism of the people who serve our country overseas… This is a unique type of war…. first shot we fired in this war against evildoers…if they join the folks who are fighting evil, that they've got to do everything they can to cut off their funds.  When we starve them of their funds, we starve them of their capacity to move against freedom… It's a strong coalition because we've got great leadership, but it's a strong coalition because we're right… This is a war between good and evil.  And we have made it clear to the world that we will stand strong on the side of good, and we expect other nations to join us…It is a war to save the world…. We have no compassion for terrorists in this country… We have great compassion, however, for the millions around the world who are victims of hate, of victims of oppressive government, including the people who live in Afghanistan.

 

The attack on Afghanistan seems almost imminent, in order to help the weak and innocent people of Afghanistan who were suffering under evil rule. The ‘coalition’ of ‘all good forces’ in the world is going to root out all ‘evil forces’ in the world.

…humanitarian assistance for Afghans for more food, more medicine, to help the innocent people of Afghanistan deal with the coming winter…oppose the Taliban regime, we are friends of the Afghan people… We will make sure that not only the folks in Afghanistan who need help get help… We will fight evil.  But in order to overcome evil, the great goodness of America must come forth and shine forth.  And one way to do so is to help the poor souls in Afghanistan ... And that's why our coalition is more than just one to rout terrorism out of the world. ... to make the world more peaceful… I see out of this evil will come good, not only here at home… I see an opportunity as well to bring peace to the world, the likes of which we've never seen…that in order for there to be peace, we must reduce the level of violence... I see an opportunity to make the world a better place for generations to come… a determination to rise up in a united way; to not only spread goodwill around the world, but to find terrorists where they may live and may hide, and those who harbor them, and bring them to justice.  Now is the time.

 

Suffice to say, President Bush portrays that it’s a fight against evil that has made the life of weak, innocent people miserable. It’s a fight to help and to free innocent people from evil.

James Bovard opines, by evoking good versus evil in war against Afghanistan and Iraq,

… Bush portrays this as a pure clash between good and evil, he represents himself as the Supreme Leader of Goodness.

 

Chomsky illustrates other side of the picture in The War in Afghanistan. Because of the fear of strikes many Afghans were wondering where to go? Pakistan, already, had millions of Afghan refuges. Moreover, America was demanding to stop food and other facilities to reach Afghanistan.

The UN World Food Program and others were able to resume some food shipments in early October, but were forced to suspend deliveries and distribution when the bombing began on October 7 …In other words, Western civilization was basing its plans on the assumption that they might lead to the death of several million innocent civilians -- not Taliban, whatever one thinks of the legitimacy of slaughtering Taliban recruits and supporters, but their victims…In late September, the UN Food And Agricultural Organization warned that over 7 million people were facing a crisis that could lead to widespread starvation if military action were initiated…

 

It demonstrates, the way, ‘Good people-Heroes-Champions of Freedom and Democracy’ of the world were helping ‘innocent people’ ruled by ‘evil dictators’. Moreover, since it argued that fighting this war meant saving America and rest of the world from evil, hence, arguing against it was unpatriotic and undemocratic.

 

10/6/2001

 

On 6 October, in a Radio address to the nation, the President once again unequivocally presented a choice to every nation in the world:

Today I want to update Americans on our global campaign against terror.  The United States is presenting a clear choice to every nation:  Stand with the civilized world, or stand with the terrorists.  And for those nations that stand with the terrorists, there will be a heavy price.

Civilized world here means nations who were with America i.e., with ‘good’ and terrorists means ‘Axis of evil’. These fallacious arguments need no further explanation.

 

Conclusion

 

The whole Good versus Evil argument constructed by G. W. Bush can be summed up:

Terrorist attacks of 9/11 were actually acts of war. Freedom and Democracy were attacked by evil. Evil doers selected America because Americans are the leaders and Champions of Freedom and Democracy- the most civilized and good people in the world have been attacked by the most brutal and evil force of the world. Now good peoples’ responsibility is to hit back, and hit back hard.

Good has to fight against evil- Evil that tried to attack the souls and freedom of good people. Evil has attacked the American people and it can attack any other freedom loving nation, for it is an evil force- it has no regard for life and freedom, and it has no justification for its actions. Moreover, Evil has no reason and has no concern for justice; therefore, no negotiations are required. If the evil is not stopped, negative consequences will follow; an age of terror will start.

War against evil is not a war against any religion, as evil has no religion. It is the responsibility of good people, not only to take care of innocent people ruled by evil, but also to punish evil and their friends.

Good and freedom loving nations unite; those who do not join good, are evil, for, there is no neutral ground. It is going to be a different war; it will be fought on many fronts and in many dimensions. In order to make the world a peaceful place, Good people have to fight this war, and they will find and kill evil all over the world- (Global war on Terror) - otherwise an age of evil and terror will begin all over the world. Coming generations will blame leaders for being cowed by the evil doers. Good people will have to make a lot of sacrifices. The war has already begun by cutting the financial sources of the evil and now its time to begin this war formally. Good will win this war.

 

10/7/2001

 

On 7 October, the President, United States of America, began a war against terrorism, a war against evil. He claimed that many nations, almost all the civilized world, is on their side to fight the greatest evil forces of the world. He once again directed the nations of the world:

Today we focus on Afghanistan, but the battle is broader.  Every nation has a choice to make.  In this conflict, there is no neutral ground. If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocents, they have become outlaws and murderers, themselves.  And they will take that lonely path at their own peril.

 

He clearly stated, the ‘battle is broader’ having no ‘neutral ground’, which entails that it was not just a War on Terror on Afghanistan it was a Global War On Terror.

We analyze, how Good versus Evil argument, works? If politicians/leaders of a country repeatedly evoke Good versus Evil frame saying their enemy is evil, and that the sufferings, whether real or projected, are caused by the evil enemy, then audience/public start making conclusions desired by them.

 

1.   Fighting Against Evil Makes One a Hero

It makes leaders heroes- necessarily good ones. As Lakoff explained, once we establish that we are fighting against evil it necessarily entails that we are good. Since some specific heroes have decided to fight evil, they alone know the true nature of evil and how to fight, therefore, change of heroes in times of war is not recommended. (Re-election of the President)

 

2.   A Good Man/Hero can Do No Wrong

It justifies giving leaders absolute powers to use resources, both human and financial; approving budget, curtailing civil liberties, imposing taxes, and sending troops to foreign lands. Since one is fighting against an evil force, one must do everything to get rid of evil.

 

3.   A Good Man Stands Against Evil

Since one’s moral responsibility is to stop evil and almost every religion preaches: firstly, not to become evil, secondly, to fight against evil. Therefore, it becomes leaders’ moral and religious responsibility to fight evil.

 

4.   Heroes Help the Weak/Powerless/Innocent, Whom Evil Rule

People ruled by Evil, are living a miserable and difficult life, they are innocent- one feels pity for them. Once again it becomes moral, religious and political responsibility of the civilized good people (leaders) to free the innocent/weak from evil.

 

5.   Evil Hates Good Civilized People

Evil has no reason, no morality; therefore, evil accepts no rule of law, for evil is a tyrant. Evil is not like Human enemy. It is a new type of enemy; therefore, a war with evil will be very different war, a war that world has never seen before. Evil attacks weak innocent people; it attacks the most cherished ideas and places of the good civilized people: Democracy, economy, prosperity, freedom etc. A tyrant never hears what the people say; he makes brutal rules feasible only to him.

 

6.   Evil Has No Face but the Frame of Evil can be Evoked Any Time

It evokes fear, for evil is a bad destructive force, public/audience must be afraid of evil. People will be further afraid of evil if leaders add some emotively charged sentences, e.g., it lives in darkness, it attacks from shadows etc.

And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather then light, because their deeds were evil- John 3: 19 RSV

 

Almost all cultures retain an idea of evil and Satan, also stories, films and cartoons about evil forces are rampant, people already have an idea of evil. Politicians play on already existing frame by just evoking the frame.

 

7.   No Good Man can Choose not to Fight Against Evil

It unites good people (World leaders). Evil is a bad destructive force, which lives in darkness and attacks from shadows, it has made the life of the weak/innocent miserable- therefore, good people must unite to fight against it, otherwise very negative consequences will follow. The good people have joined their hands against the evil (Coalition force), Not fighting against evil means one is with evil.

 

8.   Only an Evil can be a Friend of Evil

In the fight against evil, anyone found helping evil, in any way, is an evil too.

 

9.  Evils of the World Unite and Make an Axis of Evil

Evil and the friends of Evil have grouped together. They made an alliance of all evil forces- axis of evil. Evil can share the most destructive weapons making their friends more destructive for the weak/innocent. [This argument was used in case of Iraq]

 

10. Argue Not With Evil-Just Kill Him

Evil is not a humane enemy; one cannot expect moral acts/principles from them; and inhuman punishments and torturing evil does not raise moral issue. [Evil captives (suspects, terrorists) cannot be treated as ‘prisoners of war’]. No negotiations with evil can be fruitful, since evil has no reason; they have no idea of justice. Negotiations with evil will provide more time to evil and it will become more dangerous and destructive. No mercy while crushing evil, for, they don’t deserve any.

 

11. Be Patient- Good Will Prevail and Evil Defeated

A coalition of good, fighting against an axis of evil, will take time to eliminate all evil from the world. All religions, stories, movies, in the end, illustrate, Good always prevails. Good must prevail, otherwise, evil will become more powerful and good people will lose faith in goodness. The war is against numerous evil forces, present at various parts of the world, not fighting this war openly. They fight from shadows and darkness, this is not a traditional war, it will take a long time, no time frame can be given, no one place of war can be mentioned.

12.  God Sides Always with Good People.

 

 

Bibliography

 

Aristotle, Translated by W. Rhys Roberts, Rhetoric. Available online at http://calssics.mit.edu//Aristotle/rhetoric.html

Barker, Stephen F, [1985]: The Elements of Logic. McGraw-Hill Company, fourth edition.

Bovard, James, [2004]: The Bush Betrayal. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

Bush, Statement of the President in His Address to Nation, September 11, 2001, available on www.whitehouse.gov (now available on http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/)

Bush, Remarks While Touring Damage at Pentagon in Arlington: 9/12/2001. http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/

Bush, National Day Prayer and Remembrance for the Victims of the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001: 9/13 2001.

Bush, Text of the Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives: 9/12/2001.

Bush, President’s Remarks at National Day of Prayer and Remembrance: 9/14/ 2001.

Bush, Radio Address of the President to the Nation, 9/15/2001.

Bush, President Urges Readiness and Patience: 9/15/2001.

Bush, Remarks by the President on Arrival: 9/16/2001.

Bush, “Islam is Peace” says President: 9/17/2001.

Bush, President Launches Online American Relief and Response Effort: 9/18/2001.

Bush, President Building Worldwide Campaign Against Terrorism: 9/19/2001.

Bush, Address to the Joint Session of Congress and the American People: 9/20/2001.

Bush, Presidents Freezes Terrorist Assets: 9/24/2001.

Bush, Executive Order on Terrorist Financing: 9/24/2001.

Bush, International Campaign Against Terror Grows: 9/25/2001.

Bush, President Meets with Muslim Leaders: 9/26/2001.

Bush, At O’Hare President says “Get on Board”: 9/27/2001.

Bush, King Jordan “We will Stand Behind You”: 9/28/2001.

Bush, President Meet with Congressional Leaders: 10/2/2009.

Bush, President Unveils Back to Work Plan: 10/4/2001.

Bush, President Directs Humanitarian Aid to Afghanistan: 10/4/2001.

Bush, Radio address of the President to the Nation: 10/6/2001.

Bush, Radio Address of the President to the Nation: 10/7/2001.

Chomsky, Noam. The War in Afghanistan: Z Magazine. February 1, 2002. http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20020201.htm.

Copi, Irving M. and Carl Cohen, [2001]: Introduction to Logic.Pearson Education (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., India. Tenth Edition.

Feteris, Eveline T. [2002]: The Pragma-Dialectical Analysis and Evaluation of Teleological Argumentation in a Legal Context: Argumentation, Springer Netherlands.

Hurley, Patrick J. [2003]: A Concise Introduction to Logic. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, California, Eight Edition.

Ikuenobe, Polycarp, [2002]: In Search of Criteria for ‘Fallacies’ and ‘Begging the Question. Argumentation.

Ivie Robert and Oscar Giner, [2007]: Hunting the Devil: Democracy’s Rhetorical Impulse to War. Presidential Studies Quarterly.

Johnson, Ralph H. [1999]: The Relation between Formal and Informal Logic. Argumentation.

Johnson, R. H. and J. A. Blair, [1987]: The Current State of Informal Logic. Informal Logic.

Kimball, Robert H. [2001]: Moral and Logical Perspectives on Appealing to Pity. Argumentation.

Lakoff George and Mark Johnson [1980]: Metaphors We Live By. The University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, George, Simple Framing: available online http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/index.html

Lakoff, George and Evan Frisch, By George Lakoff and Evan Frisch. Five Years After 9/11: Drop the War Metaphor, 2006. http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/rockridge/

Lakoff, George. Metaphors of terror: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/News/911lakoff.html

Lakoff, George. “War on Terror,” Rest in Peace: Available online on http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/index.html

Lewis, Jeff, [2005]: Language Wars- The Role of Media and Culture in Global Terror and Political Violence. Pluto Press London.

Manser H. Martin, [1982]: Bible Quotations. Published by Lion Publishing pic. Sandy lane west Oxford, England.

Mushaarf, Pervez, [2006]: In the Line of Fire. Siman & Schuster UK Ltd.

Record Jeffrey, [2003]: Bounding the Global War on Terrorism. Strategic Studies Institute United States Army War College.

Sontag, Susan, [2002]: Real Battles Empty Metaphors. The New York Times, September 10.

Sproule, J. Michael, [1980]: Argument- Language and its Influence. McGraw- Hill Book Company.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/

Teays, Wanda, [1996]: Second Thoughts- Critical Thinking from a Multicultural Perspective: Mayfield Publishing Company- Mountain View California.

Tiles, J.E. [1988]: Logic and its Place in Philosophy, An Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Parkinson, G.H.R, Routledge, Great Britain.

Ulrike Hahn and Mike Oaksford, [2006]: A Bayesian Approach to Informal Argument Fallacies. Syntheses. Springer Netherlands.

War, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/

Walton, Douglas, [1999]: Rethinking Fallacy of Hasty Generalization: Argumentation.

Walton, Douglas, [2008]: Informal Logic- A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge University Press.

Walton, Douglas, [2006]: Poisoning the Well. Argumentation.

Woods, John, [1998]: Argumentum ad Baculum. Argumentation.

Zarefsky, David, [2006]: Strategic Maneuvering through Persuasive Definitions. Implications far Dialectic and Rhetoric. Argumentation.