Avatar for victoria 2 ноября 2003
victoria

Here they are...

Please answer only ONE of the following questions:

  1. Is it true that «my freedom fighters are your terrorists?» In other words, are all definitions of terrorism necessarily relativistic, inevitably depending on the political and ideological standpoint of the person that is defining the term? Make a coherent argument and justify your position.

2. Is the new wave of religious terrorism exemplified by groups such as al-Qaeda a fundamentally new type of terrorism or simply «old wine in a new bottle»? What characteristics does it have in common with past terrorists movements such as the FLN or the PKK? What characteristics set it apart? Make a coherent argument and justify your position.

3. What role do you think biological weapons will play in the coming decade? Will they pose a real threat to the powerful states of the world? Who, if anybody, will use them: states, terrorists groups, or other non-state actors? Make an informed prediction and justify your position.

Next Sunday we must attend a seminar at 5 pm, otherwise we  risk to get out of program, as Ekaterina Borisovna said..
=/
AAaannnd... maybe.. well, i have an idea to divide these two tasks (I don't think they'll forgive us the previous one), for example, I can answer this or previous question, whatever..
And you'll write something about another one, ok?

И с прошедшим праздником тебя :)

#
Avatar for amix спустя 4 часа (2 ноября 2003)
amix сотрудник

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
thanks for the assignments; i still haven't written my midterm essay so... eeh.

hm, i thought, we shouldn't be @ seminars as she's discovered the real system which implies our working with no seminars...
within groups OR individually + seminars...
there's a mess... well, ok.

ok, let's divide it... so which essay have you chosen to work out? the first one? i didn't understand :rolleyes:

...и тебя тоже с праздником! мысли по поводу, пожалуй, лучше оставлю при себе... :[b]/b)

#
Avatar for victoria спустя 3 дня (6 ноября 2003)
victoria

. . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . .

I've written that last essay, Malnay (or Manlay, forgot again..whatever.. :) hasn't checked it  yet.

#
Avatar for amix спустя 15 дней (21 ноября 2003)
amix сотрудник

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IT'S MISSING ON THE STANFORD FORUM!

Ну мы даем... что делать?

#
Avatar for victoria спустя 14 часов (22 ноября 2003)
victoria

. . . . . . . . . . . .

Да никакое оно не Missing!!!!!!

Это эссе было сразу после мидтерма, поэтому его все отправили на шестую неделю (там у нас не было заданий), а я не стала выбиваться и отправила туда же. Потом некоторые девушки все-таки решили выбиться и отправили на седьмую неделю. Отсюда возникла путаница.

#
Avatar for victoria спустя 3 минуты (22 ноября 2003)
victoria

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Вот авторитетное суждение Малная по его поводу:

YOUR BASIC IDEA, NAMELY THAT THE MAIN ISSUE IS «WHETHER WE CAN USE [THE] LITERAL APPROACH TO DEFINE TERRORISM OR NOT» IS A GREAT WAY OF MAKING SENSE OF THE ASSIGNMENT QUESTION. HOWEVER, THE ELABORATION OF THIS IDEA IN YOUR PAPER IS A LITTLE LESS SUCCESSFUL THAN IT COULD BE FOR TWO MAIN REASONS. ONE IS THAT YOU OFTEN TIMES FAIL TO MAKE THE CONNECTION OF YOUR POINTS TO THE CENTRAL CONCERN OF YOUR PAPER. WHAT EXACTLY IS THE RELEVANCE OF YOUR POINT ABOUT STATE AND NON-STATE TERRORISM? WHY DO YOU BRING IT UP? IF IT'S UNCONNECTED TO YOUR BASIC THESIS THEN YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE MENTIONED IT AT ALL. IF IT'S CONNECTED, THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE TOLD THE READER HOW IT'S CONNECTED. THE SAME GOES EVEN FOR THE WESTERN VS. ISLAMIC DEFINITIONS OF TERRORISM. CERTAINLY, THE CONNECTION HERE IS MORE INTUITIVE, BUT STILL, YOU JUST THROW THE ISSUE FORTH WITHOUT SPECIFYING WHY EXACTLY IT'S SIGNIFICANT FOR YOUR BASIC THESIS. SIMILARLY, YOU PROPOSE THAT «IT SHOULD BE MENTIONED THAT TERRORISM IS NOT AN INVENTION OF THE MODERN SOCIETY, IT HAS A LONG HISTORY...», ETC. BUT AGAIN, WHY SHOULD IT BE MENTIONED IN THIS ESSAY? HOW IS IT RELEVANT TO YOUR BASIC ARGUMENT?

SECOND, AND RELATED TO THE ABOVE POINT, YOUR OVERALL TRAIN OF THOUGHT IS BUMPY AT TIMES. IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S NOT ALWAYS CLEAR WHERE YOU ARE HEADING WITH YOUR ARGUMENT. YOU LIST THE DEFINITIONAL ELEMENTS OF TERRORISM FROM PROFESSOR DONOHUE'S LECTURE AS IF THEY REFLECTED THE PROPAGANDISTIC APPROACH PRIMARILY (BTW, I'M NOT SURE WHY THAT WOULD BE THE CASE...), AND THEN NOTE THAT «THESE ELEMENTS SEEM TO BE APPLICABLE TO THE LITERAL APPROACH AS WELL.» SO THE READER THINKS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S VALID FOR BOTH APPROACHES. BUT THEN, A FEW LINES BELOW, YOU ANNOUNCE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SHIFT TO THE PROPAGANDISTIC APPROACH. SO THE READER IS CONFUSED AS TO WHAT YOU HAD BEEN TALKING ABOUT THUS FAR...

AS ALWAYS, I CONCENTRATED ON THE ASPECTS IN WHICH YOUR PAPER COULD HAVE BEEN IMPROVED. BUT APART FROM THESE TWO ISSUES, IT'S A GOOD PAPER INDEED.

GRADE RANGE: 81-90

Авторизуйтесь или зарегистрируйтесь, чтобы участвовать в дискуссиях.