Rhetorical Analysis Of We Are Losing The War Against Radical Islam

For a long time, the world has been experiencing a lot of situations that include violence and terrorist attacks. One of the most recent happened in Paris when 3 terrorists connected to ISI, which has relation with Al-Qaeda, attacked a newspaper and killed 12 people. Newt Gingrich wrote an article entitled “ We Are Losing the War Against Radical Islam”, which talks about radical Islam and their attacks against the U.S. Gingrich claims that the U.S is failing the mission of stopping Islamic terrorists, and if Congress does not take severe steps to change that situation, Radical Islam will win this War. He states three points to prove how Radical Islam has been approaching the U.S, and each point he exemplifies with previous Islamic attacks against the United States of America. This article is considered credible and convincing due to fact that it utilizes two convincing rhetorical elements, which are evidence
Therefore, some people may say that the article is not as credible and convincing as it would be if the author pointed out the other side. Based on the Pursue OWL website, when the author does not give other side viewpoint, the author limits the audience, and the article loses some credibility (Weida and Stolley). However, since the author, Gingrich “was Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999” (Gingrich, he is an expert in politics and seems to have a specific audience. For example, in the article, the author addresses several times to the U.S congress, and it seems to be his audience. So mentioning the other side of the situation is not too relevant because the author is not trying to reach the public audience. Instead, his audience is politicians so they will know the opposing side’s