Rendering 8

The editorial published on the website of the newspaper "The Guardian"on October 23 is headlined "US presidential debate: who got it right on al-Qaida?" The author (Jason Burke)gives us some details about debtes between Obama and Romney about al-Qaida. They  expressed opinion about the weakening of this terrorist organization. However,the reporter concidered that in this connection it's worth while mentioning the hact that both men tried to establish a definition of al-Qaida that suited them.For exmple, Romney definded is as group that was now involved in 10 or 12 countries which presented an enormous threat.For the president, al-Qaida meant the senior leadership of the group, based mainly in Pakistan.

It was revealed that one element that influences the debate in the US is that it is the only western nation that has seen increased levels of militant activity, homegrown and otherwise, over recent years. Though most attackers have shown dubious commitment and limited competence there have been important exceptions.

The article carries a lot of comment on  the geographic spread providing the fact that there are violent extremist Islamic groups – plural – involved in, at the very least, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Yemen, Jordan, Syria, Somalia, Mali, Nigeria, Egypt, Algeria, Iraq, India, Indonesia and other places too.

Analysing the situation in the word it is necessary to emphasize that  it seems difficult to substantiate the claim that Islamic militancy is still "very very strong". Globally, polls and anecdotal evidence indicate that despite the "tumult" in the Middle East radical militancy remains attractive only to a negligible number and that popular support is still almost totally lacking outside very limited areas.

The article draws the conclusion that Al-Qaida can recruit enough people and get enough resources to survive.We may say about the continuing weakness  and the revulsion of communities across the Islamic world for violence,but there are still a great deal of acts of terror all over the world.

As for me, I think it is difficult to predict the course of events in future.Acts of terrorism have brought pain, sorrow, fear, and insecurity to our country. Terrorism will never be stopped it can only be slowed. The government does lots to prevent and gain insight of acts of terrorism to come but sometimes that requires us to give up certain freedoms that we normally take for granted.Well, I may conclude that terrorism is a growing problem in this unstable world. A simple act of terrorism can cause tensions to break between two countries, as seen with Israel and Palestineans conflicts due to religious beliefs and territory disputes.

us-presidential-debate-al-qaida 

Rendering 7

The article published on the website of the newspaper "The National Security" on September 10 is headlined "Three wars on terror".The author of the article reports that one of Barack Obama's earliest acts as president was to discard the phrase "war on terror," yet he has been waging just such a campaign these past four years - with a skillful mix of subtlety and ferocity.

 John Arquilla,the author of the article,tells us about 3 different wars on terror which were lead by Ronald Reagan, by George W. Bush and by Barack Obama.
For example,Bush's strategy proved exceptionally costly and highly problematic in Iraq, and even his initial success in "going small" in Afghanistan was all too soon overtaken by a stalemate-inducing impulse to send large numbers of troops there.So, it is opposed to Barack Obama's strategy.Obama's concept of operations, on the other hand, has been working well, and will never break the bank or exhaust our military - especially in the wake of his realizing, and reversing, the folly of surging more troops into Afghanistan, as senior military leaders persuaded him to do early in his presidency.

As for President Reagan, he signed National Security Decision Directive 138.The article draws a conclusion that Obama is now pursuing a strategy which strongly resembles Reagan's after the October 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 242 Americans.However,Barack Obama has done much better by hewing close to the concept that Reagan initially embraced. But, as was the case with Reagan, there is now a similar battle going on for Obama's strategic soul.

All in all, the author suggests that  in the battle for Reagan's strategic soul, the conventional thinkers won out because they convinced him that there was far too much of the "dark side" in the Shultz-inspired plan. In the battle for Barack Obama's strategic soul, the "overwhelming force" approach has not yet carried the day -and with luck it won't. Here's hoping that Mephisto wins this one.

As for me, I think that the terrible thing about terrorism is that ultimately it destroys those who practise it. Slowly but surely, as they try to extinguish life in others, the light within them dies. It is hard to predict the course of events in future.I disaprove of Obama's actions because invasion will bring success.

Pleasure Reading Conclusion.

Carrie becomes completely absorbed in the life of the theater. She longs to be a renowned actress. One newspaper runs a small notice announcing that she has taken a speaking part. It is the first time her name is published in a paper. Her new wage of $35 per week gives her ample spending money. New clothes, trinkets, and decorations accumulate in her room. Soon her picture is published in the paper.
Carrie receives a raise. She now earns $150 per week. Hurstwood reads of Carrie's success while staying in a dingy hotel. A crowd of ardent male admirers sends Carrie gifts, flowers, and letters. A representative of a lavish hotel asks her to take a suite there for $3 per week because her presence there will draw business. Carrie accepts the offer and takes Lola with her. Mrs. Vance, having discovered Carrie's success from the papers, calls on Carrie at her new home. They make an appointment for dinner. Despite her sudden fame and wealth, Carrie feels lonely.
Hurstwood's small store of cash dwindles as he pays for lodging in the cheapest hotels. He follows Carrie's rising success closely, reading the newspaper reviews that praise her performance. For some weeks, he works at menial tasks in a hotel. His weary attitude and taciturn nature displease his co-workers, so they make work unpleasant for him. He catches pneumonia and spends three weeks in a hospital. He begins to beg for money.
There is a homeless man in New York known as "the captain." Every evening, other homeless men gather around him. At the appointed time, the captain calls out to passing pedestrians, asking them to give money to rent beds for each of the men. Hurstwood seeks out the captain's peculiar charity and manages to sleep indoors for a night.
Drouet, having read of Carrie's success in the papers, pays her a visit, hoping to take up where they left off. He informs Carrie of Hurstwood's theft the night he fled Chicago. Pity and sorrow for Hurstwood overwhelm her. She brushes Drouet off after dinner. Soon after, Hurstwood catches her on the street and asks for money. Filled with pity, she asks him what has happened to him and hands him nine dollars. Insulted by her pity, Hurstwood gives her vague answers and shuffles off.
Ames returns to New York. He tells Carrie that she should act in dramas rather than comedies. Carrie feels as if she has failed his expectations. They bond over music and her former fascination with him is revived. Hurstwood begins making regular rounds to various charities in order to survive. Drouet continues chasing after women, as always. Jessica marries a wealthy man, much to Julia's satisfaction. Hurstwood commits suicide by leaving the gas on in a cheap hotel room. Carrie's success grows, but she continues to suffer from an unsatisfied desire for something even she cannot name. Drouet gives up on trying to meet with her, and she never learns of Hurstwood's death.

My Pleasure Reading 330-379

Hurstwood receives Carrie's letter and resolves to win back her love. He learns that Drouet is no longer living at the apartment with her, so he assumes they have argued and parted ways. He returns to work. After closing, he checks all of the cash drawers and the safe. He discovers that the safe has been left unlocked, leaving ten thousand dollars in cash unprotected.

Hurstwood knows that Julia probably will get everything in the divorce. Even though he and Carrie could live for years on the ten thousand dollars he finds in the safe, he decides to leave it where he found it. However, the safe clicks shut while the money is still in his hands. Hurstwood has never been given the combination to the safe, so he will probably get in trouble for removing the money from the safe. He flees the saloon with the money.

Hurstwood rushes to Carrie's apartment. He tells Carrie that Drouet is in the hospital with a serious injury and that he wants to see her. She hurries out with him, and Hurstwood takes her to the train station. Carrie unknowingly follows him onto a train headed to Detroit. She slowly realizes that Hurstwood has lied to her and demands that he let her go. Hurstwood pleads with her to run away with him to Montreal. He says that he is divorcing his wife and promises to marry Carrie right away. She agrees to go with him. He says nothing about the stolen money.

Carrie recognizes that Hurstwood is no longer as free with his money as he had been in Chicago. He will not discuss his money matters with her, and the first seeds of trouble are sown in their relationship. Meanwhile, Hurstwood fears meeting old acquaintances in New York.

 Days pass into weeks. Hurstwood begins pestering Carrie to economize on household expenses. In order to ensure that they spend as little as possible, he begins running all the household errands himself. Carrie notices with dissatisfaction that he skimps on many expenses. She also loses her weekly allowance because Hurstwood does all the shopping. Hurstwood becomes apathetic. He ceases to dress well and neglects his daily grooming. Eventually, he even stops consulting the ads in the papers. Carrie makes a cutting remark about his idleness. They begin sleeping in separate rooms.

 Carrie decides to look for work as an actress. She finally gets a position as a chorus girl at twelve dollars a week. She uses "Carrie Madenda" as her stage name. Having found work so quickly, she resents Hurstwood's months of joblessness even more than she had before. She insinuates that he is not actually looking for work when he goes out. She resents her new position of having to support Hurstwood her small wage. Now that she is paying the household expenses, her desire for new clothing and small ornaments grows. Rather than paying rent, she buys a new pair of shoes, and Hurstwood begins buying groceries on credit. Carrie befriends another chorus girl, Lola, and they start spending evenings out together.

She decides to move in with Lola because she will only have to pay twelve dollars a month for rent.
Carrie borrows twenty-five dollars from Lola. When Hurstwood leaves for a walk, she writes him a note explaining that she is leaving him. She leaves twenty dollars for him and moves out of the apartment. When Hurstwood returns and finds the note and the money, he sits in the rocking chair for several hours, staring at the floor.

Pleasure Reading 290-330

Julia resents Hurstwood's lack of attention toward her and becomes suspicious. She bitterly notes his sudden good humor and the special attention he has begun paying to his appearance. One of Hurstwood's friends sees him with Carrie in a carriage. However, he thinks the woman is either Julia or Jessica. When he encounters Julia, he jests that she is too good to talk to her friends. After some circumspect questioning, she realizes that Hurstwood has been seeing someone and finally understands the reason that Hurstwood has been so busy recently.
Julia and Jessica go to the races and meet another friend of Hurstwood's. He expresses regret that she was too ill to attend the play at Drouet's Elk lodge. The fact that Hurstwood went out for the evening without taking her enrages Julia. Hurstwood returns home after his meeting with Carrie in a cheery mood. Julia behaves coldly with him. Hoping to mollify her, Hurstwood tells her that she can go on vacation if she wants. Julia replies that she does not intend to leave town and leave him free to fool around with another woman. Hurstwood denies her accusations.
Julia demands that he give her the money for the trip to Waukesha the next morning. He refuses, and she asks him who has been keeping him so busy during the evenings. Hurstwood tells her that her accusations are false and that she will not be allowed to dictate the terms of their relationship to him. However, he cannot disprove her accusations, and he remembers with regret that all of his property is in her name. She threatens to get a lawyer if he does not submit to her demands.
Carrie returns home and sits in her rocking chair, staring out the window. Drouet arrives, full of determination to confront Carrie about her affair. He asks her what is going on between her and Hurstwood, and Carrie denies that anything untoward has been happening. Drouet advises her to stay away from Hurstwood because he is married. Carrie is shocked and angry. Drouet accuses her of using him for his money. Carrie declares she will not live with him anymore, but Drouet says that she can stay and that he will leave.
Hurstwood regrets putting his property in Julia's name. He wonders if she's going to publicize his indiscretions. He goes to meet Carrie at their usual place and time, but she never arrives. He checks to see if she has written him a letter, but she has not. Later, he receives a message from his wife demanding that he give her the money she asked for immediately. Hurstwood tells the messenger boy that there will be no reply. Soon, a second note arrives, in which she threatens to inform Fitzgerald and Moy of his indiscretion if he does not give her the money. Hurstwood finally relents and returns home to deliver the money, only to find that he has been locked out of the house.
Hurstwood returns to his office and sends a messenger boy to deliver the money. He spends the whole weekend without word from either Carrie or Julia. On Monday, he receives a letter from a lawyer. Julia has retained legal counsel concerning her property rights and the support Hurstwood owes her as her husband. They request a visit from Hurstwood to discuss the matter. He calls on his son several times, but receives no answer. He still receives no word from Carrie, and he realizes that she must have discovered that he is married. On Wednesday, he receives a letter from Julia's lawyers stating that unless he comes to meet them by one o'clock the next day, they will file suit on Julia's behalf for divorce and alimony. If he fails to meet with them, they will assume that he is unwilling to negotiate any other terms.

Review №2

Cast: 

Reese Witherspoon, Meryl Streep, Peter Sarsgaard, Alan Arkin, Jake Gyllenhaal and Omar Metwally.

Director: 

Gavin Hood

Synopsis:

 Anwar El-Ibrahimi (Omar Metwally) - Egyptian-born chemical engineer, but with  Lawful Permanent Residence in the USA, mysteriously vanishes on a routine flight from South Africa to Washington. His American wife Isabella (Reese Witherspoon), in her turn, embarks on an international search for her missing husband. At the same time, a CIA analyst (Jake Gyllenhaal) arrives at a clandestine detention facility outside of the United States, where he is forced to interrogate  El-Ibrahimi using unorthodox methods.

Review:

After a terrorist bombing kills an American envoy in a foreign country. An investigation leads to an Egyptian-born chemical engineer Anwar El-Ibrahimi (Omar Metwally).He has been living in the United States for years and who is married to an American. He is apprehended when he's on his way home. The U.S. sends him to the country where the incident occurs for interrogation which includes torture. Anwar was suspect of implication in the terrorist suicide attack. So,this situatuon shows us the vicissitudes of life  and  mean joke of fortune.

At the same time an American CIA operative observes the interrogation and is at odds whether to keep it going or to stop it. In the meantime, the man's wife raises hell to find him despite being pregnant but the person behind this refuses to help or give her any information.

 However,in the end of the film Anwar returns to the US and is reunited with his family. Freeman then leaks the details of Anwar's detention to the American press. The story is then found in the newspapers the following day by Corrine Whitman, who ordered Anwar's extraordinary rendition.

Once more story line here refers to love. Abasi's daughter Fatima has run away from home with her boyfriend Khalid. While reading a notebook that contains pictures of Khalid and his brother together, showing that they were extremely close,Fatims discovers that Khalid is doing a deed in revenge for his brother's death. Realizing that his brother met his death at the hands of her father and that Khalid is about to assassinate him, she rushes away,trying to avoid an act of terror. I can conclude that it's a vivid example of power of persuasion and religious views.

As for the perfomance, it was bright and very professional. I may assert that actors are reals masters of their craft.Most of all I was impressed by Reese Witherspoon who expose all possible human feeling and emotions.I also have to mention Meryl Streep who is an absolute bitch as Corrine Whitman, the all powerful voice of which men or women should be detained as a threat to the United States.

In coclusion I'd like to tell that this film touches many problems.It is now so well-established that the United States authorizes the practices shown in this film.I feel saddened,because.What the film documents is that we have lost faith in due process and the rule of law, and have forfeited the moral high ground. Reading some of the reviews of my classmates, I was struck by a comment by Nastya Streltsova :"A really democratic country cannot caught, torture and interrogate innocent people just because it has unchecked information about their supposed "crime" I absolutely agree with this statement.

It's very imprudent to affirm that  there is no possibility that Anwar’s phone was stolen or lost. But there are possibilities that the terror chief gave the phone out to other people to lose heat. And in the end Anwar said in the bathroom that his uncle who LIVES in Egypt have no money, so its a possibility that he could’ve accepted a free or bargain “dirty” phone from somebody and used it to call Anwar.

To sum up, this film makes me think about many issues.After watching, you may find yourself questioning the morality of “extraordinary rendition”. It is an interesting topic which the film brings up with bias. Yet ultimately, the film is not as shocking or important as it tries to be. It feels more like a couple hours of popcorn political intrigue and there is certainly enough good here to make it worth a look.