Discussion Assignment Week 7 — 25 points total

I. Original Message (15 pts) Post a brief (approx. 250 word) message addressing one of the following questions. Be sure to use information and examples from the readings:

1. Author in Context. Choose one of articles (either a “Yes” or a “No” article) from the Taking Sides readings for this week and analyze the article using one or more of the concepts from the first part of the course. Characterize the article using one or more of these ideas, and give examples to support this label. For example: is the author a realist or an idealist? Is the article shaped by a progressive history outlook, a materialist history, or a nationalist history? What seems to be the author’s assumptions about economics or culture or political science? [Note: It is difficult to label any of these articles as “only one thing.” Your goal is to make a case. Feel free to modify your label as necessary — “somewhat of a realist, but mostly an idealist,” for example.]
[This must be a DIFFERENT article than the article you choose for the Study Assignment. No double-dipping on this one!]

Or

2. Big Synthesis. Based on the readings for this week, create a useful hypothesis (or words of wisdom) that could be a model for studying international events. Use examples from the readings to support your theory. You are also welcome to adopt one of the viewpoints you have read about so far (realist/idealist, environmental determinist/possibilist, etc.) For example, do these readings suggest that the international arena is fundamentally a competitive, violent, and anarchic place, or do they suggest the real possibility of international cooperation? [Note: you are simply making a case and coming to a tentative conclusion, not declaring The Natural Law of How the World Works.]
]
II. Response on other question (10 pts) In addition, post a short (4-6 good sentences) response to someone else’s message about the OTHER question, the one you did not answer. Response below

1. Author in Context Issue: Are We Headed for a Nuclear 9/11?
(Yes) “The Jihad against the Jihadis: How moderate Muslim leaders waged war on extremists- and won”
The author Fareed Zakaria article is looking at the realist views of Al- Qaeda and jihad fight agents the united states. The article is dates and place where there was terrorism took place. Many examples in the article would describe what terrorist would achieve and explain how the place being attacked would react or what would happen from the other side. Zakaria brings up many different methods both the Al- Qaeda and US use to try and stop each other. More then just war, the stop of money flow, boarder control preventions etc. Everything that the author brings forth was a real threat for both sides there was know room for error or the likely hood of more death was the ending result.
For example 9/11 was Al-Qaeda biggest attacks on the United states. Killing innocent people in such a mass attack caused two major problems for the United states. First what was the US next step? Then would this display of power by Al- Qaeda cause a up rising of followers around the world including the US.
Al-Qaeda has a strong nationalist history. Al-Qauda has shown that their belief that the interests of a particular (state; its is hard to place this group in one exact place because they are constantly being pushed around) are primary importance. Al-Qauda uses their beliefs to justify their sacrifices and terrorist efforts. “Al-Quada remains a group of relentless ruthless killers who are trying to recruit other fanatics to carry out hideous attacks that would do terrible damage to civilized society” (pg 240.)
The US after the terrible loss of 9/11 went after Al-Qauda by pushing them out of ” Afghanistan and pursued them anywhere they went” (pg 238). A 10 year battle began as a direct result of the 9/11 attack.

This violent attack did not just effect the United States. Other countries join in the battle against Al-Qauda because the likely hood of another attack other then the US was very much possible. France to Malaysia were joining in to try and stop this terrorism that was taking place in the world.

Discussion Assignment Week 7 — 25 points total

I. Original Message (15 pts) Post a brief (approx. 250 word) message addressing one of the following questions. Be sure to use information and examples from the readings:

1. Author in Context. Choose one of articles (either a “Yes” or a “No” article) from the Taking Sides readings for this week and analyze the article using one or more of the concepts from the first part of the course. Characterize the article using one or more of these ideas, and give examples to support this label. For example: is the author a realist or an idealist? Is the article shaped by a progressive history outlook, a materialist history, or a nationalist history? What seems to be the author’s assumptions about economics or culture or political science? [Note: It is difficult to label any of these articles as “only one thing.” Your goal is to make a case. Feel free to modify your label as necessary — “somewhat of a realist, but mostly an idealist,” for example.]
[This must be a DIFFERENT article than the article you choose for the Study Assignment. No double-dipping on this one!]

Or

2. Big Synthesis. Based on the readings for this week, create a useful hypothesis (or words of wisdom) that could be a model for studying international events. Use examples from the readings to support your theory. You are also welcome to adopt one of the viewp01oints you have read about so far (realist/idealist, environmental determinist/possibilist, etc.) For example, do these readings suggest that the international arena is fundamentally a competitive, violent, and anarchic place, or do they suggest the real possibility of international cooperation? [Note: you are simply making a case and coming to a tentative conclusion, not declaring The Natural Law of How the World Works.]
]
II. Response on other question (10 pts) In addition, post a short (4-6 good sentences) response to someone else’s message about the OTHER question, the one you did not answer. Response below

1. Author in Context Issue: Are We Headed for a Nuclear 9/11?
(Yes) “The Jihad against the Jihadis: How moderate Muslim leaders waged war on extremists- and won”
The author Fareed Zakaria article is looking at the realist views of Al- Qaeda and jihad fight agents the united states. The article is dates and place where there was terrorism took place. Many examples in the article would describe what terrorist would achieve and explain how the place being attacked would react or what would happen from the other side. Zakaria brings up many different methods both the Al- Qaeda and US use to try and stop each other. More then just war, the stop of money flow, boarder control preventions etc. Everything that the author brings forth was a real threat for both sides there was know room for error or the likely hood of more death was the ending result.
For example 9/11 was Al-Qaeda biggest attacks on the United states. Killing innocent people in such a mass attack caused two major problems for the United states. First what was the US next step? Then would this display of power by Al- Qaeda cause a up rising of followers around the world including the US.
Al-Qaeda has a strong nationalist history. Al-Qauda has shown that their belief that the interests of a particular (state; its is hard to place this group in one exact place because they are constantly being pushed around) are primary importance. Al-Qauda uses their beliefs to justify their sacrifices and terrorist efforts. “Al-Quada remains a group of relentless ruthless killers who are trying to recruit other fanatics to carry out hideous attacks that would do terrible damage to civilized society” (pg 240.)
The US after the terrible loss of 9/11 went after Al-Qauda by pushing them out of ” Afghanistan and pursued them anywhere they went” (pg 238). A 10 year battle began as a direct result of the 9/11 attack.

This violent attack did not just effect the United States. Other countries join in the battle against Al-Qauda because the likely hood of another attack other then the US was very much possible. France to Malaysia were joining in to try and stop this terrorism that was taking place in the world.

Discussion Assignment Week 7 — 25 points total

I. Original Message (15 pts) Post a brief (approx. 250 word) message addressing one of the following questions. Be sure to use information and examples from the readings:

1. Author in Context. Choose one of articles (either a “Yes” or a “No” article) from the Taking Sides readings for this week and analyze the article using one or more of the concepts from the first part of the course. Characterize the article using one or more of these ideas, and give examples to support this label. For example: is the author a realist or an idealist? Is the article shaped by a progressive history outlook, a materialist history, or a nationalist history? What seems to be the author’s assumptions about economics or culture or political science? [Note: It is difficult to label any of these articles as “only one thing.” Your goal is to make a case. Feel free to modify your label as necessary — “somewhat of a realist, but mostly an idealist,” for example.]
[This must be a DIFFERENT article than the article you choose for the Study Assignment. No double-dipping on this one!]

Or

2. Big Synthesis. Based on the readings for this week, create a useful hypothesis (or words of wisdom) that could be a model for studying international events. Use examples from the readings to support your theory. You are also welcome to adopt one of the viewpoints you have read about so far (realist/idealist, environmental determinist/possibilist, etc.) For example, do these readings suggest that the international arena is fundamentally a competitive, violent, and anarchic place, or do they suggest the real possibility of international cooperation? [Note: you are simply making a case and coming to a tentative conclusion, not declaring The Natural Law of How the World Works.]
]
II. Response on other question (10 pts) In addition, post a short (4-6 good sentences) response to someone else’s message about the OTHER question, the one you did not answer. Response below

1. Author in Context Issue: Are We Headed for a Nuclear 9/11?
(Yes) “The Jihad against the Jihadis: How moderate Muslim leaders waged war on extremists- and won”
The author Fareed Zakaria article is looking at the realist views of Al- Qaeda and jihad fight agents the united states. The article is dates and place where there was terrorism took place. Many examples in the article would describe what terrorist would achieve and explain how the place being attacked would react or what would happen from the other side. Zakaria brings up many different methods both the Al- Qaeda and US use to try and stop each other. More then just war, the stop of money flow, boarder control preventions etc. Everything that the author brings forth was a real threat for both sides there was know room for error or the likely hood of more death was the ending result.
For example 9/11 was Al-Qaeda biggest attacks on the United states. Killing innocent people in such a mass attack caused two major problems for the United states. First what was the US next step? Then would this display of power by Al- Qaeda cause a up rising of followers around the world including the US.
Al-Qaeda has a strong nationalist history. Al-Qauda has shown that their belief that the interests of a particular (state; its is hard to place this group in one exact place because they are constantly being pushed around) are primary importance. Al-Qauda uses their beliefs to justify their sacrifices and terrorist efforts. “Al-Quada remains a group of relentless ruthless killers who are trying to recruit other fanatics to carry out hideous attacks that would do terrible damage to civilized society” (pg 240.)
The US after the terrible loss of 9/11 went after Al-Qauda by pushing them out of ” Afghanistan and pursued them anywhere they went” (pg 238). A 10 year battle began as a direct result of the 9/11 attack.

This violent attack did not just effect the United States. Other countries join in the battle against Al-Qauda because the likely hood of another attack other then the US was very much possible. France to Malaysia were joining in to try and stop this terrorism that was taking place in the world.