Writing September 11, 2001
in Writing the war on terrorism
Abstract only
Log-in for full text

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

manchesterhive requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals - to see content that you/your institution should have access to, please log in through your library system or with your personal username and password.

If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/extracts and download selected front and end matter. 

Institutions can purchase access to individual titles; please contact manchesterhive@manchester.ac.uk for pricing options.

ACCESS TOKENS

If you have an access token for this content, you can redeem this via the link below:

Redeem token

One of the most noticeable aspects of the language surrounding the attacks of September 11, 2001 is its constant reference to tragedy, grievance and the exceptional suffering of the American people. A significant aspect of the discourse surrounding September 11, 2001 is the way in which the events were discursively linked to a number of popular meta-narratives. It is quite common for politicians to make use of historical analogies to try to explain current events. This chapter demonstrates that there is a deliberate and sustained effort to discursively link September 11, 2001 to the attack on Pearl Harbor itself. The September 11, 2001 attacks provided officials with a readymade and exceptional grievance. The focus on American victim-hood and grievance sets the basis for military retaliation and a global 'war on terrorism' that resulted in tens of thousands of civilian deaths and the systematic abuse of thousands of terrorist suspects.

Writing the war on terrorism

Language, politics and counter-terrorism

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 546 121 5
Full Text Views 140 18 0
PDF Downloads 78 28 0