Q: How are Muslim mothers/families portrayed in "Spare me the phony tears of terrorists' mothers"?

Just by reading the title a person can comprehend that the author is against the mothers of terrorists. And not just terrorists, Muslim terrorists, " watched him bleed to death as they chanted Arabic slogans." In this text, she talks about ‘Arabs' and ‘ chanting slogans ' while the person bleeds to death in such a way that tells us that she' s against Muslims and encourages the ster eotype about Muslims as cruel in the text and is ready to voice her thoughts and opinions about it to her audience . She also only uses the examples of terrorist attacks done by Muslims, " Anis Amri " and "Abdel Malik Petitjean "

The author uses informal language and writes her opinions and thoughts (Be specific, what are her thoughts and opinions?) , " unless parents, local communities and religious leaders accept responsibility for their children's behavior, there will be countless more terrorists like Anis Amri causing misery and carnage in the West." The way she says more terrorists like Anis Amri , she might mean more Muslim terrorists. Also, i n this text she writes that if these people would accept that they're responsible for the murders and bombings of the terrorists, there will be less murders but there isn't any evidence of facts and statistics that show that this will happen or is predicted to happen. She also makes it out as if it's the fault of the community and religion that people become terrorists. T he author again uses her opinion when talking about whose fault the attack is, " It's always someone else's fault when these kids become murderers, never the fault of families and communities which turn a blind eye when their young spiral frighteningly out of control."

All paragraphs should start like this opening statement. The writer uses the sympathy and emotions of the audience to persuade them to agree with her , "She can renounce away, but it will give no comfort to the families of those who died at her son's hands." (Language analysis?) She shows no compassion or sympathy towards the mother or the family of the terrorist as she shows a picture of the grieving mother by captioning it with "mother of terrorist" and uses repetition (evidence?) of it throughout the text to emphasize her point , that is Muslim families are not as innocent as they seem. "Brought laughter" shows how the families pretended that they didn't know what was happening in the lives of the terrorists .

The author persuades the audience that the family of terrorists are as much responsible for the killings and bombings as the terrorists and aren't as innocent as they say they are "I'm sorry, but I can't believe his family weren't aware of this." The author uses structural elements such as Immediately after quoting the family of how the terrorist was just an ordinary man (Use the word ‘structure in this sentence to make it obvious that you're discussing structural elements) , the author mentions the illegalities done by him to show the audience how wrong his family is portraying him, " convicted of drug abuse and violent armed robbery in Tunisia. " " fled to Italy to escape a lengthy prison sentence." She then explains his life in jail and how different his f amily described him to the jail he was put in , " Sicilian jails recall Amri as a thug who bullied other inmates." which further makes the family seem guilty even though she didn't write the source of the information .

Have a better opening sentence which tells us author/choice/effect. At the beginning of the article, the author writes of how the mother was ‘coincidentally' clutching the picture of her son, the terrorist, just hours before the incident. This makes the audience believe that it was more than just a coincidence. She further succeeds in persuading the audience when she writes, " Amri's mother seemed blithely unaware that her child was a turning into a monster." (How is this persuasive? Analyse the quotation, not describe it) When the writer