How does Jeffery use language to meet his audience and purpose? Essays

Submitted By fionn
Words: 774
Pages: 4

How does Jeffery use language to meet his audience and purpose?

In this article the writer was writing to persuade his audience whether or not Britain should or should not take military action.
One of the techniques used was to try and swing the views of left wing politicians and supporters. He says “but after Ed Miliband’s – and other politicians’ – political gaming-based” which is aimed to target the fact that politicians have been in the news due to various scandals causing unrest in supporters trust and he is now trying to make it more uneasy still. It also suggests he is trying to make the point of labour are taking it as a game and solely trying to get one over on the conservatives.
He also tries to use guilt as a technique to persuade the audience by saying “afflicted population are increasingly likely to be left as traumatised by our actions or inactions” implies that if we do nothing and let the slaughtering continue it will have the same effect as if we intervene and stop the Assad regime, he also says “Evil exists in this world not just because of evil people but because the good do nothing” says it is our fault, that we let this atrocity happen without stopping it, for two years this war has been going on and it has continued because Britain has sat idly and has done nothing to stop the killing of thousands, it’s atrocious, I think the UN should grow a spine and cut off all trade from Syria until they give up all their weapons and agree to stop all the needless fighting.
It is a bit like with Hitler, in the treaty of Versailles it was stated that he was not allowed an army above a certain amount of people and Britain said fine but we are warning you. Then he invades Poland and Britain say last chance and it is not until he invades France that Britain even seem to care and after that they still take a long time to mobilize so let us hope it does not end up world war three.
There is one thing he does not talk about in this article which is if the British invade Syria then there is the possible intervention of Russia and if Russia get involved then it could become a world nuclear threat and if the Russians do threaten Britain with nuclear missiles then America might step in and that could cause the French to step in so it forms two sides of a war between east and west, again, so in that aspect invading may not be the best decision.
If Britain launch tomahawk missiles as they have threatened to then a lot of civilians could be killed and maimed by the explosions plus the fact that if a missile hits one of the targets which is a factory that creates chemical weapons then civilians may be harmed further by the harmful gasses escaping from the factories.…