English [Language Analysis]

[varzex]

Hey guys, not sure if people are still on the website at this time but I was hoping I could get any feedback possible on an analysis I wrote.

The related articles are:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/osama-rot-in-hell-for-eternity/story-fn6bn88w-1226048699675
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/threat-of-terrorism-wont-die-with-worlds-most-wanted-20110502-1e4yn.html
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/politicalcartoons/ig/Political-Cartoons/Mission-Actually-Accomplished.htm

The articles "Osama rot in hell for eternity" and  "Threat of terrorism won't die with world's most wanted", both published on the May 3rd, 2011, written editorials in The Herald Sun and The Age, both maintain that the recent death of Osama bin Laden is a "momentous achievement" and attempt to justify his assassination. The Herald Sun's editorial expresses a cynical tone as it contends that the death of Osama bin Laden is a relief to all social demographics as the world is forever rid of the "world's most wanted terrorist". The editors of The Age take a more subtle approach, embedding the contention with context. The editor's undertake an informed tone, suggesting that bin Laden's presence and death was more symbolic to the world, while remaining sceptical of current celebrations being premature and that the western world must prepare for "serious repercussions". Sack's cartoon "Mission Actually Accomplished" draws attention to the word "actually" in a sarcastic, demonstrating the victory as symbolic and showcasing how premature celebrations are.

The editors of The Herald Sun's article, "Osama rot in hell for eternity",  immediate use of negative connotation portrays their cynicism towards Osama bin Laden. He is described as "a potent symbol of all that was evil in the world" which show the editors' obvious distaste for him. Although the statement is exaggerated, the reader is automatically positioned in a spiteful standpoint towards bin Laden. This is furthered when "bloodshed and carnage" is juxtaposed with  "Women and children" and "Muslims"; appealing to both families and racial demographics as it visualises the horrors the "world's most wanted terrorist" committed to the innocent; evoking sympathy for anyone effected by the war and disgust for both bin Laden and his "murderous thugs". Included in this article is a pairing of statistics and patriotism as demonstrated by "3000 people were killed in those al-Qaeda attacks, including 10 Australians. This unites all Australian readers from the same standpoint and provides justification for hatred felt from Australians for bin Laden the al-Qaida group.

The Age editor's article, "Threat of terrorism won't die with world's most wanted", has a similar contention to the article published in The Herald Sun, but provides greater context and seeks to educate the audience. Like the first article, The Age editors open with negative connotation about the events of September 11, 2001, but includes a more diverse range of examples, including the bombing in Kenya, Tanzania and Saudi Arabia. The assassination of bin Laden is justified through the editors' use of statistics. " killing more than 3000 people" and "killed 224 people and wounded nearly  5000, most of them African" shows the reader the damage inflicted by bin Laden and al-Qaeda on a global scale. This allows the reader to understand why it was necessary for "the war on terror".

The scepticism displayed by the editors is shown through "the impact of bin Laden's death remains to be seen"; defining part of the editors contention. Although The Herald Sun editors make a small mention of this, through "The war on terror must go on" (a sudden addition to the contention). The Age editors use appeal to authoritative figures through " US officials believe that, even in hiding, bin Laden helped direct al-Qaeda's strategy" and "as the security for the royal wedding showed, the world still feels the threat acutely",  to show the reader that in hiding, bin Laden bin Laden's "main power was symbolic" as he terrorised the world. This once more shows the justification of Osama bin Laden's assassination.

Both editorials make appeals to Muslims, explaining that Muslims 'our war is not against Islam' and that the "majority of Muslims have been repulsed by the terrorism and violence". This unites and educates readers of the circumstances, that 'Bin Ladin was not a Muslim Leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims'. These are mentioned to dispel the characterisation that "all Muslims were supporters of bin Laden".

Sack's cartoon, "Mission ACTUALLY Accomplished" emphasises the word "actually" as an attack on the former Bush administration who prematurely claimed their mission as accomplished. The inclusion of Government buildings in the background depicting the CIA, Pentagon and the White House shows Sack's contention; that the mission has been accomplished from a political standpoint. This belittles the efforts the Bush administration made and allows the reader to realise the excessive effort that has been put into a war which is only ten year later making progress. This is can be compared to The Age editors' article, through the inclusion of "Obama came to office accusing Mr Bush of having needlessly diverted resources" and "US has more troops deployed there than at any time since the initial 2001 invasion". Both The Age editors and Sack demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the efforts made of the "war on terror". Sack's cartoon as a whole shows how symbolic this "victory" is through sarcasm, allowing the reader to understand contention; that very little has actually changed.

The three pieces all express their own opinions of bin Laden's assassination with the first article taking a cynical stand point, specifically designed to pin all reader against bin Laden, while the second article takes a more informed approach; attempting to educate the audience while considering future implications of this event. Sack' cartoon is designed to ridicule the previous efforts made while depicting the assassination from a political standpoint, relating it more to The Age editors' article. However, the three pieces conform to admit the war does not end with bin Laden's death al-Qaeda still prevails.

Thanks anyone who provides feedback or takes the time to read.