Battle means a fight between armed forces. Compared to the expression military operation, battle is more explicit in conveying the meaning that the armed
forces are engaged in a combat and not just a peacekeeping nor other non-combat operation. Therefore, battle contains the semantic property combat, although it does
not necessarily contain the semantic property offensive since the tone of battle is neutral. Offensive, on the other hand, tends to focuses on the attacking party instead
of the one who is defending. In battle, it does not matter which party is defending and which is attacking.
Attack is a violent act intended to hurt or damage someone or something. Compared to the expressions military operation and battle, the semantic properties
contained in attack are more explicit. Since attack specifies a violent act conducted to damage something, it means the expression contains the meaning combat. Combat
itself is defined as a fight between parties, especially during war. Furthermore, it implies an intention to hurt or damage. It means that the purpose of this act is not
merely to defend oneself against a threat or mediate an armed conflict, but it goes to the extent of intentionally damaging the other party. Thus, attack contains the
semantic properties combat and offensive. These semantic properties are vaguely included in the euphemistic expression military operation. Therefore, in order to see
the distinction between these three expressions, the table below compares the semantic properties which are included in the expressions military operation, battle,
and attack.
military operation battle
attack armed conflict
+ +
+ combat
± +
+ offensive
± ±
+ Table 22. Semantic properties of military operation, battle, and attack
B. Ideologies in Bashar al-Assad’s Speech
This part scrutinizes Bashar al-Assad’s ideologies which are revealed through the means of euphemistic expressions. The focus of the analysis in this part falls on
the semantic properties which are absent from the euphemistic expressions. In the discussion of the semantic properties in the euphemistic expressions, it can be seen
that Assad uses euphemism when the truth or the real situation is just too unpleasant or blatant to be told. Therefore, he conceals certain meanings – represented by the
semantic properties – which contain the ugly truth. However, this strategy is not done carelessly. From the twenty euphemistic expressions and their missing semantic
properties, it is shown that there is a pattern which is consistent in the way Assad hides certain meanings from his speech. This consistent pattern can be seen by the
common characteristics that these missing semantic properties share. It means that this strategy is done systematically. When something is done systematically, there
must be an underlying system which serves as a ground of its structure. This underlying system is ideology. There are two ideologies in Assad’s speech. They are
national strength and autonomy.
1. National strength
The dominant ideology in Bashar al-Assad’s speech is national strength. This ideology stems from some semantic properties which are absent from the euphemistic
expressions in the speech transcript. Below is the list of the semantic properties which are absent from Bashar al-Assad’s euphemistic expressions:
1. to hide information 12. war
2. possible objection 13. destruction
3. violent 14. critical
4. organized military force 15. suffering
5. threat to world peace 16. strong disapproval
6. wrongful act 17. serious problem
7. against others’ wishes 18. to cheat
8. unfair 19. disliked
9. negative intention 20. possible damage
10. to take advantage 21. combat
11. to harm 22. offensive
Those twenty two semantic properties are absent from the text because they create an impression of a serious threat towards Syria. Such impression is going to
make the Syrians question their own strength as a nation. When they worry and question about their own strength against their enemies, they will be reluctant to fight
back and defend Assad’s right to rule Syria. Thus, it is essential to scrutiny these
