Jason

Please, check if the passages below are grammatically correct. Thanks!

The elimination of Jason bears mostly a symbolic value. Neither will it bring an end to the terror activity of his men inspired by the fanatical theology of "The Fifth Religion", which Jason was among its prominent masterminds, nor will it prevent terror attacks in order to avenge the blood of that terrorist. Nevertheless, the authorities has succeeded, although slightly, in improving their image in the state and raising the morale of the citizens. This is, virtually, the whole story.

The chase after Jason began in 1998. At that time members of "The Fifth Religion", by order of Jason, carried out the terror attacks in Tunao and Pitono . David Blat, then the head of the special services, tried to assassinate Jason with his men launching missiles at Jason's camp, but the terrorist emerged unscathed.

It might go into past tense to match the last part.

The elimination of Jason carried a largely symbolic value.
It did not end the terrorist activities of his men, who were inspired by the fanatical theology of 'The Fifth Religion', which Jason was one of the prominent masterminds of - nor did it prevent terror attacks carried out to avenge his death.
Nevertheless, the authorities succeeded, slightly, in improving their image around the state, and in raising the morale of the citizens. That is, virtually, the whole story.

The chase after Jason began in 1998, when members of "The Fifth Religion", by order of Jason, carried out terror attacks in Tunao and Pitono. David Blat, then head of the special services, tried to assassinate Jason, by having his men launch missiles at Jason's camp, but the terrorist emerged unscathed.

not a teacher or an editor* )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JTRiff

It might go into past tense to match the last part.

---

The first part is the analyst's prediction of how Jason's men will act after his death. How can a prediction come in the past tense? Why should the tense match the last part?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by motico

The first part is the analyst's prediction of how Jason's men will act after his death. How can a prediction come in the past tense? Why should the tense match the last part?

---

I agree that it shouldn't.

The elimination of Jason bears (present tense is fine since you're doing an analysis) mostly a symbolic value. Neither will it bring (future is fine) an end to the terror activity of his men inspired by the fanatical theology of "The Fifth Religion", which Jason was among its prominent masterminds, nor will it prevent terror attacks in order to avenge the blood of that terrorist. Nevertheless, the authorities hasve succeeded, (I agree with present perfect here) although slightly, in improving their image in the state and raising the morale of the citizens. This is, virtually, the whole story.

Note: I didn't correct other mistakes as JTRiff already did that.

Who or what is an analyst? Is it a TV show? There's no mention of that.:-D

The elimination of Jason has a mostly symbolic value.
It will neither bring an end to the terror activity of his men(,) inspired by the fanatical theology of "The Fifth Religion", which Jason was among the prominent masterminds of, nor will it prevent future terror attacks in order to avenge the blood of that terrorist.
That sentence was a train wreck.:shock:
Nevertheless, the authorities have succeeded, although only slightly, in improving their image in the state and in raising the morale of the citizens. This is, virtually, the whole story.

OK, that's the analyst. Now, who is this?

The chase after Jason began in 1998. At that time members of "The Fifth Religion", by order of Jason, carried out the terror attacks in Tunao and Pitono . David Blat, then the head of the special services, tried to assassinate Jason, ordering his men to launch missiles at Jason's camp, but the terrorist emerged unscathed.

The reader knows nothing that you don't tell him! ;-)